Liam Chelkowski
Billboards loom above interstates, daytime-TV spots crowd the commercial breaks, and sponsored TikToks slip between dance videos—all urging the recently injured to “call now” for the settlement they “deserve.” In 2024 alone, trial-lawyer advertising cost more than $2.5 billion and generated roughly 26.9 million separate ads—outspending pizza chains two-to-one. That communications blitz raises a double question central to the scholarship-contest prompt: how does saturation marketing reshape the welfare of prospective plaintiffs and the professional lives of their attorneys, and is the net effect salutary or corrosive?
The constitutional green light for this boom flashed in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, where the Supreme Court declared that lawyer advertising is “commercial speech” entitled to First-Amendment protection so long as it is truthful and non-misleading. Yet the Court quickly drew boundaries. In Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n it upheld discipline for coercive, in-person solicitation, and in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n it struck down a blanket ban on truthful direct-mail letters to foreclosure defendants, emphasizing that states should police deception, not speech itself. Modern ethics codes echo the same bargain: Rule 7.1 of the ABA Model Rules bars “false or misleading” claims, while leaving otherwise accurate advertising largely free. The doctrinal compromise is thus permissive but conditional—speech may flow, but it must be honest, and regulators retain a watchdog role.
For injured consumers that openness is often life-changing. Personal-injury work revolves around contingency fees and is unintelligible to laypeople who may assume legal help is unaffordable. A television spot listing “no fee unless we win” or a bilingual billboard in a rural county collapses search costs and reveals, in seconds, that help might cost nothing up front. Empirical work on informative advertising shows precisely that effect: in markets where legal-services ads rise, unrepresented plaintiffs decline and settlement frequency increases, suggesting that information equalizes bargaining power. Access, in other words, is real.
But the same megaphone can distort expectations. Defense-side research, echoed by insurance-industry publications, reports that heavy exposure to “hammer of justice” billboards and nine-figure verdict slogans conditions would-be jurors to view eight-digit damages as ordinary, a phenomenon folded into the broader debate over “social inflation.” A 1997 UNLV survey of actual Nevada jurors even found that, when the plaintiff’s counsel was recognizable from TV, mock verdicts skewed toward the defense—participants viewed the lawyer, not the defendant, as the rent-seeking party. Thus, while ads inform, they can also prime cynicism or, conversely, unrealistic jackpot hopes, both of which complicate the search for just and proportional awards.
Advertising’s capacity to mobilize mass-tort filings is equally double-edged. A recent Stanford-and-RAND study used proprietary Nielsen data and Federal Judicial Center dockets to show that a spike of mass-tort television ads in a media market predicts a statistically significant rise in Multidistrict-Litigation complaints within months. On one hand, that surge surfaces latent injuries—think of rural veterans who never learned about defective earplugs until a late-night commercial. On the other, mass recruitment funnels thousands of tenuous claims into MDLs, bogging down discovery and diluting recovery for the seriously harmed. Plaintiffs with strong cases wait longer while courts sift through weak ones, and defendants price the uncertainty into global settlements that pay everyone less.
The economic repercussions for lawyers themselves are unmistakable. Because pay-per-click and broadcast CPMs escalate with each competitor’s spend, client acquisition has become a capital-intensive race that favors high-volume “settlement mills” and regional goliaths. Nora Freeman Engstrom’s influential Contingency Fee Cost Paradox documents that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s assumption in Bates, heavy advertising has not driven down contingency-fee percentages; if anything, fees tick upward as firms pass marketing costs onto clients. Solo or boutique practices face a Hobson’s choice: pay steep referral fees for leads or retreat to niche, non-advertised work. Market concentration rises, and with it the risk that client service cedes pride of place to client volume.
Ethically, saturation marketing pushes the profession toward cliff-edges long anticipated by bar regulators. Texas recently amended its disciplinary rules to require that any publicized verdict be “truthfully qualified” if later reduced on appeal or settled for less, forcing firms to disclose net recovery with “equal or greater prominence.” The reform followed headlines about billboards trumpeting $100-million jury awards that, in fact, yielded ten cents on the dollar after post-trial motions. Yet such rules are only as effective as their enforcement. State disciplinary budgets are slim, and complaints usually surface not from duped consumers but from defense counsel mid-litigation, converting ethics into tactical fodder rather than consumer protection.
None of this is to say the pendulum must swing back to a pre-Bates gag rule. The correct inference is subtler: advertising is a tool whose social utility depends on its calibration. Three modest steps would tilt the cost-benefit ledger decisively toward the public good. First, borrowing from securities law’s “truth-in-labeling” regime, states could require short-form outcome statistics—median net-to-client recovery for the relevant practice area—whenever dollar figures appear in an ad. Second, bars might license third-party lead generators and cap resale fees, ensuring that small firms can buy qualified leads without paying monopolistic mark-ups or breaching fee-sharing prohibitions. Finally, regulators could deploy keyword-scraping algorithms to flag unapproved ads in real time, shifting oversight from episodic grievance files to proactive, data-driven monitoring.
When those safeguards are present, the uptick in personal-injury advertising is, on balance, beneficial: it democratizes information, pressures complacent incumbents, and funds contingency-fee structures that let ordinary people litigate against deep pockets. When the guardrails fail, the same ads can inflate costs, corrode trust, and seed frivolous filings that clog courts and delay justice for the truly injured. The lesson, true since Bates, is that the First Amendment does not compel an advertising free-for-all; it requires that truthful speech flow while deception and undue influence are curbed. Striking that equilibrium is the shared task of bar regulators, courts, and the profession itself. Do that, and the next accident victim who sees a billboard may dial a number that leads not to disappointment, but to the accountability the civil-justice system promises.
Works Cited
American Tort Reform Association. “Legal Services Advertising in the United States – 2020-2024.” ATRA, https://atra.org/white-paper-and-repo/legal-services-ads-2020-2024/. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/350/. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Crittenden, John, et al. “Attorney Advertising and the Contingency Fee Cost Paradox.” Stanford Law Review, https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/attorney-advertising-and-the-contingency-fee-cost-paradox/. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Hodes, W. William. “Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: A Consumers’ Rights Interpretation of Professional Advertising.” Denver Law Review, vol. 54, no. 2, 1977, pp. 277–304, https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3120&context=dlr. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Jayanth K. Krishnan. “Attorney Advertising: The Effect on Juror Perceptions and Verdicts.” UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations, 1997, https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/7/. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978). Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1650. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Rossi, Faust, et al. “Mass Tort Advertising and Multidistrict Litigation Filings.” SSRN, 2 May 2024, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5053721. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/466/. Accessed 12 July 2025.
State Bar of Texas. “Committee Reports.” Texas Bar Journal, vol. 86, no. 7, 2023, pp. 536–538, https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=57159&Section=Past_Issues&Template=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm. Accessed 12 July 2025.
Turcotte, Jason. “‘$10 Million? You Don’t Blink at That Anymore’: Are Lawyer Billboards Affecting Juries?” PropertyCasualty360, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2023/04/21/10-million-you-dont-blink-at-that-anymore-are-lawyer-billboards-affecting-juries-414-237202/. Accessed 12 July 2025.