This, from Above the Law and Legal Blog Watch:  The Chicago law firm of Fetman Garland & Associates has been generating some controversy with its “Life is Short – Get a Divorce” ad campaign.

Corri Fetman, one of the partners in the firm, is reportedly the female in the advertising photographs, and is now apparently writing a regular column for Playboy magazine on “Love and the Law”.

Carolyn Elefant’s criticism on Legal Blog Watch centers around her perception of whether the campaign will be effective at attracting clients.  That misses the point.

At the most basic level, this sort of advertising falls under the rubrick of questionable conduct that I have written about here in the past.  I have suggested that an analysis of whether questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer is such that it ought to subject the lawyer to discipline, a disciplinary tribunals should consider these questions:

• Is the conduct such that if a client had knowledge of it, would that knowledge tend to impair the client’s trust in the lawyer as a professional consultant?
• Does the conduct tend to bring into question the integrity of the legal profession, or erode confidence in the administration of justice or the legal profession?

If either question can be answered in the affirmative, then the lawyer ought to face disciplinary sanction.  In this case, the firm’s existing clients may not necessarily lose confidence in their advisors as a result of the advertising campaign.  Existing clients have already formed a relationship with their counsel, and unless counsel’s performance or behaviour changes significantly, then the client’s view of his or her lawyer is not likely to change.

For clients without a relationship with any lawyer, however,  the campaign erodes confidence in the administration of justice and the legal profession generally, for reasons that I will outline in a moment.

I also see an issue with respect to Codes of Professional Conduct that contain guidelines on advertising, such as those in the Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct.  Chapter XIV begins at page 91 in the link.

There, lawyers are admonished “…to provide legal services in an efficient and convenient manner that will command respect and confidence, and by means that are compatible with the integrity, independence and effectiveness of the profession…”.  The commentary to the rule requires that advertising be “consistent with the public interest” and that it does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

That is precisely where this campaign fails.  Divorce is hardly something someone pursues because “life is short”, and their partner doesn’t have the physical attributes in the photos accompanying the ad copy.

Divorce, universally, is a miserable experience in a client’s life.  It is often filled with acrimony, hurt feelings, and monumental expense.  Where children are involved, the situation is worse.  When custody is in issue, they feel torn, and the experience affects the rest of their lives.  This paper is one example of the literature.  There are numerous others.

When lawyers blithely ignore the gravity of the experience of divorce in a client’s life, the main problem with advertising isn’t whether or not it will be effective.  It is the fact that the general public perceives that the institution they have entrusted with safeguarding the justice system is more interested in increasing the demand for the product it is selling than in providing guidance through what will be one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives.

The inconsistency with the public interest lies in the disavowal of the public interest.  While this might be fine in a line of work not so fundamentally connected with the way we govern ourselves as a society, in my view, it is not sufficient in a profession.