This website is the firm’s electronic brochure, a form of attorney advertising. You only found this site because you looked for us. We do not engage in television, radio, print, mail or spam email-advertising campaigns of any kind. Frankly, we find many of them somewhat offensive. Mr. Turkewitz does, however sponsor local youth sports teams and a local footrace. Because that kind of advertising we like.
Throughout this site you will see examples of cases we have handled. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results cannot, and do not, guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.
Our Views on Attorney Advertising
Ever since the Supreme Court approved attorney advertising in 1977 (on First Amendment grounds) in Bates v. Arizona there has been a proliferation of attorney ads. Most of those ads are — to be frank — tasteless and unpolished and, unfortunately, this it what sticks in consumer minds.
The ones that people remember are the most tasteless ones, and they often deal with car accidents. Those who sit jury duty remember them. We believe that these advertisements reflect poorly on the legal profession and are highly detrimental to personal injury victims.
You need not take our word for it, because you have no doubt seen some yourself. So has the judiciary. In deciding whether some new attorney advertising rules in New York were constitutional in 2007, Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullen, in the Northern District of New York had these scathing comments regarding attorney advertising:
Without question there has been a proliferation of tasteless, and at times obnoxious, methods of attorney advertising in recent years. New technology and an increase in the types of media available for advertising have exacerbated this problem and made it more ubiquitous. As a result, among other things, the public perception of he legal profession has been greatly diminished. Although the Court finds it commendable that the Appellate Division of the State of New York and the disciplinary committees that function on its behalf pursue ways to regulate the manner and means by which attorneys who choose to advertise may do so, they must be mindful of the protections such advertising has been afforded and take the necessary steps to see that the regulation of such advertising is accomplished in a manner consistent with established First Amendment jurisprudence.
We elect not to conduct ourselves that way. This website is it. But we’re pretty sure that isn’t what springs to mind when people talk about lawyer advertising.
The majority of our clients are secured through word-of-mouth, personal recommendations and by people who find our website and like what we have to say.
If you would like advice on how to choose a firm (that does not include advertising), see: How to choose a New York personal injury attorney (and what to avoid)
Eric Turkewitz is also a nationally recognized blogger. In his New York Personal Injury Law Blog, he gives his reflections on the law, tort “reform” and relevant news stories. His blog was named one of the top law 100 blogs five years in a row by the American Bar Association Journal, and then inducted into its law blog hall of fame. It isn’t used to solicit business by discussing the cases you see on this site. It is used at some points, however, to discuss the new frontier in lawyers and advertising, to the extent you wish to read more on the subject.