{"id":3825,"date":"2005-05-06T13:33:05","date_gmt":"2005-05-06T17:33:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/05\/06\/scotching-lawyer-nicknames\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:44","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:44","slug":"scotching-lawyer-nicknames","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/05\/06\/scotching-lawyer-nicknames\/","title":{"rendered":"SCotching lawyer nicknames"},"content":{"rendered":"
Florida’s lawyer-advertising police can finally point to a state with even sillier <\/font>rules than their own — South Carolina.\u00a0\u00a0 Thanks\u00a0to some asinine\u00a0legislative over-<\/font>reaching by “tort reformers,” it is now unlawful for a lawyer to advertise with “a <\/font>nickname that creates an unreasonable expectation of results<\/em>.”\u00a0\u00a0(S.C. Code <\/font><\/font>Section 39-5-39(1)<\/font><\/a>; the legislation is <\/font>summarized here<\/font><\/a>, with links) (via <\/font>RiskProf<\/font><\/em><\/a>, <\/font>who has done some interesting brainstorming; and Walter Olso<\/em>n<\/font><\/a>)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/font>Of course, one might argue that no<\/em> nickname creates an “expectation of results.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>(especially in a part of the Country noted for nicknames).\u00a0 But, that would require <\/font>a belief — apparently lacking in the South Carolina Legislature — that consumers\u00a0<\/font>have brains\u00a0(see our <\/font>post<\/font><\/a> & <\/font>comment<\/font><\/a>).\u00a0 <\/font><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\"hammer\"\u00a0\u00a0I expect this Nickname Ban to be struck down as an overbroad limit on\u00a0<\/font>commercial speech.\u00a0 Here in Upstate New York, we once had Jim “<\/font>The Hammer<\/font><\/a>” <\/font>Shapiro, and have had “<\/font>The Heavy Hitters<\/font><\/a>”\u00a0(Martin Harding & Mazzotti) for years,\u00a0 <\/font>plus four lawyers who practice separately but advertise jointly as “<\/font>The Dream Team<\/font><\/a>.” <\/font>So far, our consumers\u00a0have successfully avoided Sobriquet Expectation Syndrome<\/em>.\u00a0 <\/font><\/p>\n
Should the ban on nicknames be upheld, I suggest that South Carolina lawyers <\/font>consider officially changing their given or middle names — perhaps to Champion, <\/font>Rock, Vindicator, or the ever-popular Hammer.\u00a0 And, please plan ahead: give your <\/font>children names they can grow into that inspire confidence in the gullible.\u00a0 Native <\/font>Americans — or their admirers — could probably come up with some very evocative <\/font>and effective names (“She Who Takes Many Scalps,” “He Who Always Gets One-Third”). <\/font>Do you <\/font>think “Sue” is allowed?<\/font> \u00a0 Got any (family-rated) suggestions?\u00a0\u00a0 Please use the <\/font><\/font>Comment link below.<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n

its name tag blowing
\nin the winter rain…
\nbag of rice<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ISSA<\/font><\/a>, translated by <\/font>D.G. Lanoue<\/font><\/a><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Florida’s lawyer-advertising police can finally point to a state with even sillier rules than their own — South Carolina.\u00a0\u00a0 Thanks\u00a0to some asinine\u00a0legislative over-reaching by “tort reformers,” it is now unlawful for a lawyer to advertise with “a nickname that creates an unreasonable expectation of results.”\u00a0\u00a0(S.C. Code Section 39-5-39(1); the legislation is summarized here, with links) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-ZH","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3825"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3825\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13231,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3825\/revisions\/13231"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}