The recent New Jersey ethics opinion is gathering steam in the online discussions. The latest announcement of "super" lawyers is from the Family Law News in which it is announced that the San Francisco magazine has recently proclaimed that many collaborative lawyers are among the Super Lawyers of San Francisco.
I loved the Kentucky Law Blog posting about the controversy surrounding such "bests." How much publicizing of such publications can we/should we do?
The Indiana Law Blog has an interesting post on this issue, as well, which details the law in several jurisdictions.
The Kentucky Law Blog posts a long link of online stories:
"NO MORE "SUPER LAWYERS" IN NEW JERSEY . . . It's news that's apparently causing a firestorm in New Jersey [Evan Schaeffer]
Ethics Crusaders Crush 'SuperLawyers', by Henry Gottlieb at Law.com
Law - "Superlawyers" must not flaunt status [Updated] [Indiana Law Blog]
"Lawyer Ads Cannot Tout ‘Super’ Status" is the headline to this story today in the NY Times regional section: * * *
Law - More on: "Superlawyers" must not flaunt status [Ind. Law Blog]
Law.com today posts a story from the New Jersey Law Journal reporting that:
A New Jersey Supreme Court ethics panel knocked "SuperLawyers" and "Best Lawyers in America" out of the business of ranking New Jersey lawyers on July 19 by prohibiting attorneys from advertising their inclusion and taking part in the selection process. * * *
Ethics Elsewhere: New Jersey Prohibits Lawyers' Claims to be "Super Lawyers" and "Best Lawyers" [How Appealing]
NJ Stupidly Outlaws "Super Lawyers" and "Best Lawyers" [Larry Bodine]
“Super Lawyers” and “Best Lawyers” Designations Banned in New Jersey [Larry Bodine]
A Bonehead Ruling [Common Scold Blog]
And of course, here are links to our earlier stories:
Ethics: More on the N.J. Decision Banning Lawyer's Claims to be "Best Lawyers in America"
Ethics Elsewhere: New Jersey Prohibits Lawyers' Claims to be "Super Lawyers" and "Best Lawyers"
We haven't seen the end of this discussion.
Comments