“Super Lawyer” listing still OK in Georgia

Last month there was a news story about the New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising, a panel appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruling that attorney advertisements that tout listings such as the "Super Lawyers" listings violate professional responsibility rules against ads that compare lawyers’ services or create an "unjustified expectation about results."  That gave me pause, as it did the marketing folks at every big law firm in Atlanta, since the profile on my web site includes listings in the "Super Lawyers" issue of Atlanta Magazine, "Legal Elite" issue of Georgia Trend magazine, and the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.

However, the Fulton County Daily Report published an article on August 11th reporting an analysis to the effect that,  while Georgia’s ethics rules contain proscriptions against comparative advertisements and ads that create unwarranted expectations, the language in Georgia is more permissive than that found in New Jersey’s ethics rules. The New Jersey rule prohibits as false and misleading any advertisement that "compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services." Under Rule 7.1(a)(3) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, the rule against comparisons does not apply if the comparison "can be factually substantiated."

The "Super Lawyers," "Legal Elite," and "Preeminent Lawyers" lists are all based upon periodic surveys of our peers in the legal profession, and cannot be purchased.  While the methodology is certainly not perfect, neither is it meaningless or factually unsubstantiated.  Therefore, we will continue to include those designations on the web site.

The Shigley Law Firm  represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases statewide in Georgia, and in other states subject to the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules in each state. Ken Shigley was designated as a "SuperLawyer" in Atlanta Magazine and one of the "Legal Elite" in Georgia Trend Magazine. He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute and former chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute. He particularly focuses on cases arising from truck wrecks and accidents (tractor trailers truck wrecks, semi truck wrecks,18 wheeler truck wrecks, big rig truck wrecks, log truck wrecks, dump truck wrecks.

  • Gary Canterbury

    Sir, I’ve read several of your articles with interest. i am a new safety director ( two months, former CMV driver of 6 years) with a smaller company (80+ trucks) that I am trying to bring into compliance. We recently experienced an FMCSA audit and upgraded the company status from conditional to satisfactory. I have a lot of work to do however to change the “renegade” mindset into one of compliance. One of the biggest problem areas is in inspections and interpretation of the FMCSA regulations of same. Knowing that the rules were designed for 24/7 slip seat operations, I have tried to explain to my employers that a PREinspection is far more important than a POST inspection. In fact, just getting my drivers to do them is a difficult task, as the company and the previous safety director (who was not a CMV driver) put little emphasis on safety in the real sense and NO emphasis on inspections. I know, from reading various case texts, that many trials hinged on the plaintif’s counsel proving that inadequate inspections were done, allowing mechanical failures of parts that had degraded over time and gone without notice. What, as a litigation lawyer, is your stand on pre- and post inspections and their importance in lowering liability in the (god forbid) happenstance of CMV and POV collisions where injury and possibly death occur? I am trying to, if no way else, shock the ownership into understanding the importance of coming into compliance where inspections are a concern to liability through litigation. Sorry for the long-windedness. Thanks for any insight you can give.