Marketing and advertising Flashcards
Overview on publicity
❖ Attorneys may give publicity to their practice, as a general rule.
Publicity Requirements:
Advertising Regulatory Board
❖ Advert must be in good taste.
❖ Advert must not be misleading.
Content of Publicity (Rules)
❖ May not compare the quality of your services with that of another firm.
❖ May not criticise other law firms.
❖ May not refer to your success rate.
❖ May only refer to the name of a client with the client’s consent.
❖ Attorney is to be identified in every advertisement.
❖ May state categories of work.
❖ Attorneys are prohibited from any reference to them having been rated by “Best Lawyers”
❖ May list yourself on directories such as:
➢ Yellow Pages
➢ Hortors
Newsletters
❖ May inform clients of new developments in:
➢ The Law
➢ Case Law
➢ Legislation
Knock and Drop Pamphlets
❖ Knock and Drop Pamphlets are NOT permissible in terms of advertising.
Specialisation
❖ A firm may hold itself out as a specialist or expert in any branch of law.
❖ However, a higher standard of expertise and skill is required.
Brochures
(Rules)
❖ May be displayed in reception.
❖ May not be misleading.
❖ May not claim or imply superiority.
❖ May be sent to existing clients.
❖ May be sent to former clients, only if you know they are likely to return
❖ May appear on TV or take part in radio broadcasts.
❖ Consent of Legal Practice Council not required.
❖ Only requirement is that you must be qualified.
Statements as to
charges
❖ May not state specific kinds of work for a specific charge.
❖ May only specify basis of charges (R5000 an hour).
❖ May not compare your fees with other attorney’s fees.
Social Media
❖ Do not give advice on Twitter or Facebook.
❖ Use social media as a tool to drive traffic and awareness to your website.
❖ Provide basic information and stick to the basic rules
Case law on social media
The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Berrange 2005
The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Berrange 2005 FACTS
❖ Facts
➢ In this case the court dealt with the issue of marketing
agreements between attorneys & estate agents.
➢ The attorney had an arrangement with Seeff & Pam Golding.
➢ He paid them R500 000 & in return they would send all their
conveyance work to him.
➢ In their accounting records the law firms stated that this
money was for marketing & training purposes
The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Berrange 2005 JUDGEMENT
➢ In this case the attorney was suspended for a period of two years for having entered into an arrangement with estate agents whereby conveyancing work was referred to the attorney against payment of a reward.
➢ The court found that this was akin to touting for business and is considered a serious transgression.
➢ Essentially the complaint against him is that he entered into a scheme to secure for his firm professional work solicited by unqualified persons.
➢ The respondent is suspended from practising for his own account, or as a director of a professional company.
➢ The respondent breached the rule & was guilty of unprofessional conduct.
