X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [24.51.79.189] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1c.3)
  with HTTP id 1355708 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:59:19 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tort
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1c.3
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1355708@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B31DA557@lucky.dts.local>
References: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B31DA557@lucky.dts.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

  The BAR (aka, all the lawyers) were opposed to allowing advertising.
  One could argue that it was concern about the undignified advertising
  that we see today, but an equal, perhaps better, argument could be made
  that they were really concerned about protecting their franchise.  The
  big firms could afford to buy big yellow pages adds, so people that who
  look in the phone book, would gravite to the big, established firms.
  Advertising would lower the barrier to entry, and reduce the value of
  the big law firm franchises.
  
  So, which is the true and correct analysis of their motiviation against
  advertising?  When choosing between altuism and money--always chose
  money.
  
  Chuck Jensen
  Do Not Archive