January 18, 2011
Most lawyer ads are the same. Guy in a suit, wood-paneled office, law books in the background, a couple of guys in ties, maybe one with his jacket off and sleeves rolled up. looking intently at a piece of paper meant to be a writ, or a tort, or whatever. A voiceover, a pledge to work for you and get what you deserve, and an 800 number. How do you stand out?
Make a really bad commercial.
OK, never mind the cheesy acting of the accident victims, you see that all the time. and ignore the lawyer near the end who almost can’t keep a straight face as he’s looking over his partner’s shoulder at the script- I mean at a legal document. My problem is with the animation. It looks like something done by either a talented eight year old or a gifted chimp. And their logo- made up of happy, smiling, disabled, bandaged accident victims. There are many questions I could ask, but I think this one sums them all up- what’s up with that?
But is it better or worse than the commercial it replaced, featuring the rappers?
And now the Spanish version:
I think I prefer the Spanish version.
The song I get- it repeats the number over and over and over until you want to drill a hole in your head to drain the song out. But are these the least interesting rappers you’ve ever seen? Who wants to see them?
No wonder they were replaced by badly animated squirrels. Or chipmunks? What are those things anyway?
I went to their website for some answers. All I got were more questions. I am not sure they are a legal firm. This is from the front page of their website:
OK, they are a law firm, but they don’t seem to make their money from practicing law. In fact, on their whole front page, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a mention of their law services. You do however find this:
It seems that this law firm is based not around the practice of law but around the licensing out of their phone number and allegedly effective commercials.
On the other hand, what other law firm gives you a guarantee of a free lunch?
I never saw a Supreme Court justice make that claim, but then again, they don’t even have their own animated logo, so what does this say about them?
During the course of my research, I even found that these guys have their own YouTube channel featuring their two commercials. It is lighting YouTube on fire!
I have seen a ton of lawyer ads, from the guy in the cowboy hat to the woman who screams her own last name, but this is easily the worst of the lot.
Mr. Blog's Tepid Ride 
Well, looks like you found something even lower than the average bottom feeder! Aside from all the valid points you raise, this is one more example of what’s wrong with the way people think: Injury=victimization=$$ This makes me want to go for a drive with no seatbelt and a McDonalds coffee in my lap!
LikeLike
If you happen to arrive without a scalded lap or whiplash, be sure to park in front of a place that hasn’t de-iced their sidewalk.
Even then, you wouldn’t be able to top this:
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#Examples_of_frivolous_court_filings)
Pearson v. Chung, the case of a Washington, D.C. judge, Roy Pearson, who sued a dry cleaning business for $67 million (later lowered to $54 million), has been cited as an example of frivolous litigation. According to Pearson, the dry cleaners lost his pants (which he brought in for a $10.50 alteration) and refused his demands for a large refund. Pearson believed that a ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ sign in the window of the shop legally entitled him to a refund for the cost of the pants, estimated at $1,000. The $54 million total also included $2 million in “mental distress” and $15,000 which he estimated to be the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another dry cleaners.
– which actually puts me in mind of https://bmj2k.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/tales-of-the-laundromat-game/
LikeLike
There was a similar case- no joke- on The People’s Court. The guy won the cost of his pants.
Another good one I came across was a jailed convict who sued himslef for $25 million for the damage he’d done to himself while drunk. His theory was that if he won, the state would have to pay him since he was jailed.
LikeLike
A woman who screams her own last name? Repeatedly, or one long continuous scream through out the commercial? Is it like “Jooooohnsooooooon!”, or “Johnson! Johnson! Johnson!”?
It sounds pretty David Lynch-esque either way.
LikeLike
It isn’t really, a scream, it is an angry overemphasis.
LikeLike
I managed to track down some of the commercials on Google video – it sounds like she’s got some sort of problem with her own last name, like she’s mad that she is who she is.
“I’m Roni Deutch – you got some sort of problem with that?”
Up here in the Canadia, we don’t have quite the same problem with home-made commercials, although there is one notable exception: Russell Oliver.
It does remind me, however, of this classic:
LikeLike
I wanted to post a couple of her commercials, and her rebuttal video (!) but this is one of those days where Youtube videos take (I am not exaggerating) 5 minutes to load and it jsut wasn’t worth it.
Here it is, hope it runs for you.
LikeLike
I need to figure out what service or software these videos are using for their word displays.
Now I’m going to have Roni Deutch’s name stuck in my brainpan forever, and I can’t even recall what it is she does.
LikeLike
I wish I didn’t just watch those commercials…after Charles Binder without his hat, I have enough to worry about.
On a side note, I’m glad I watched the Spanish version…good to see menudo is keeping busy…
LikeLike
Heh heh, Menudo…
And what is up with Binder? It looks like he’s getting dressed in that commercial. (Nice play on his tag line, btw.)
LikeLike
Wait – the poorly done 3D at the start of this commercial leaves me with the impression Indy’s name is actually Dinder?
LikeLike