REVIEW: Evaluation of Attorney Group Public Media Advertising Service

The following article was originally posted on 07/18/16. The article was removed on because I received a cease and desist letter from the company.  I stand by my evaluation of their service 100%.  I believe that my evaluation was through and fair.  The name of the marketing services company; it’s products, and brands were redacted and the article was re-posted on November 30, 2016.

11 Reasons Why I Decided Against redacted text‘s Program

This article was posted on: 07/18/16.  To read an update to this blog post dated 07/22/16 click here.

Pay For Leads Services & Offerings

All law firms get dozens of calls and emails every month from individuals or companies that promise that they can deliver qualified leads that will convert into clients. Sales people promise that their company is the answer. They say that they’ll handle the marketing so an attorney can just focus on practicing law.

I typically delete the voice mails and emails that I get from these kinds of companies. I don’t have time to listen to their sales pitches. I’m too busy handling the day-to-day tactical execution of our firm’s in-house marketing programs. But every other year or so I will actually take the time to listen to the sales pitches and ask questions in order to learn more about the biggest players in the legal marketing pay for leads arena.

I do this because 1-) if there is a program that delivers quality, qualified leads and offers a good return on investment, I definitely want to use it; and 2-) because eager sales people often share good market intelligence or competitive information–so I will receive at least some benefit from taking the time to learn more about the offerings.

I always go into these discussions with an open mind and the intent to buy-in if there is real value in the service. But in all the time that I have been handling marketing for my husband’s law firm (about 10 years) I have yet to encounter a lead-selling company or program that has seemed valuable enough for me to want to make a commitment to purchase.

My evaluation criteria are based on the business model on which my husband and I run our firm; our case criteria at the time the evaluation was made; and how the lead offering’s potential ROI compares to other marketing programs we were utilizing at the time of the evaluation.

If you are considering a pay-for-leads program you should conduct your own evaluation.

redacted text Basic Evaluation

Recently I conducted an in-depth evaluation of redacted text’s (XXX) “Group Public Media Advertising” offering. I was discussing my evaluation with an attorney who will be attending my upcoming Private Legal Marketing Academy and he urged me to write a review of the service to explain why I chose not to work with XXX at this time. He thought that other law firms would benefit from understanding how I evaluate legal marketing vendors and opportunities.

In this article I will relay as much information as I can about the source(s) of the information I obtained and the thought process behind my conclusions.

redacted text DATA/INFORMATION SOURCES

I was able to conduct a complete review of XXX‘s offerings details, terms and conditions. The information was obtained the week of June 27, 2016 via multiple in-depth conversations and detailed email exchanges with an XXX ‘Business Development Specialist’ (sales person); a ‘Director of Product’ (technical sales person/product manager), and a ‘Sales Executive Manager’ (sales manager).

I received a copy of XXX’s standard advertising agreement from the Director of Product.  I found an almost identical copy of the contract that was an exhibit in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. XXX P.C. et al, (No. redacted text – Document XXX (E.D. Mich. 20XX)).*    All direct quotes from the XXX contract come from the publicly available copy of the contract and will be displayed in red text in this article.

I also referenced information that is currently available on their website and searched for other third-party opinions.

A detailed list of the sources is listed at the bottom of this article.

PRODUCT/SERVICE OVERVIEW: How XXX‘s Group Public Media Buying Works

XXX describes itself as “…the largest nationwide network of attorneys expanding their reach and caseload with our all-inclusive advertising program. redacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted textredacted text.”1

Their standard advertising contract more succinctly describes the value proposition by stating that “PURCHASER agrees to participate in a group with other law firms in PURCHASER’S advertising market only for the purpose of sharing in the cost of advertising legal services intended for injured persons.2

I would described the basic XXX process as:

  1. Attorneys pay XXX a subscription fee to receive all injury case leads within a specific geography which is defined by zip code.
  2. XXX spends money promoting their own XXX brand in TV, radio, print, and internet pay-per-click ads.
    People who believe they have been injured either call the company’s 800 number or fill out a form on their website.
  3. XXX then routes to lead to an attorney or law firm in the injured person’s zip code.
  4. If XXX does not have a subscriber attorney within that zip code, the lead is then passed on to one of the nearby subscriber attorneys.

From the point of view of the legal consumer, XXX is an attorney referral service.

XXX OFFERING EVALUATED

In June 2016, XXX pitched a $240,000 “investment” over a two-year commitment period—$10,000 per month.

During multiple telephone calls the XXX sales representative, I was told that I could expect between 11 and 20 leads per month from the geographies we were discussing. Which could mean as few as 264 or as many as 480 leads over the course of the term. Based on the salesperson’s estimates the average would be 15 leads per month or approximately 360 leads over two years.

After several meetings they revised the offering to give me a 600 lead guarantee.

We discussed a specific geographical areas within Washington State containing four ‘zones’—zones XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX.

The relationship would be governed by XXX‘s standard contract.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

I personally believe that the XXX program offers no real value to a boutique law firm such as ours that has relatively high case criteria and a narrow practice area focus.  And our firm has has an in-house marketing team which is able to  generate leads and cases at a lower cost than the XXX program.

However, a volume firm that has lower case criteria and accepts a broader range of personal injury case types may find the XXX offering valuable.  Or a firm that does not have an in-house marketing team and wants a done-for-you marketing lead generation program might find the service essential.

Overall I was shocked to see the terms and conditions outlined in the XXX contract. I believe that they contract allows the XXX to operate with little to no accountability.  And the contract terms would allow XXX an open ended time period in which to deliver the agreed upon number of leads.  I would be required to pay in full regardless of the number of leads delivered during the two year term.  However, XXX would be allowed to take as long as they like to actually deliver the leads.

In my opinion, there are multiple contradictions between what is described by sales people and on their website and what is specifically stated in the contract language. In fact, their contract includes language that nullifies the sales process by saying, “Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect.3

PROBLEM #1: Very Low Standard For Lead Qualification

Compared to all other companies that sell leads to lawyers, XXX has one of the lowest standards for defining a “qualified lead.” If a person responds to an XXX TV or Internet ad; indicates that they want to talk to a lawyer; and is willing to share their name, zip code and phone number then XXX calls it a personal injury lead.

Basically XXX just puts out a net to catch people who are interested in legal services and then pass the “lead” on to an attorney͛s office. That’s it.

XXX representatives do no ask if the person was in an accident, who is at fault for the accident, if there were injuries, when it happened, or any other information that is useful in determining if there is a legitimate personal injury claim.

XXX’s contract language reinforces the fact that there is no qualification of the leads by stating, “COMPANY provides no screening of responses to COMPANY’S Group Public Media Advertising4 and “PURCHASER acknowledges that COMPANY can’t accurately estimate or predict the quality of the advertising responses PURCHASER will receive as a result of the advertising.5

Given this very low qualification standard for defining a “lead”, XXX actually has incentive to create ads that contain broad messages that will attract and catch just about anything—minor fender benders with no injuries; questionable slip and fall cases; or people who are willing to make an illegitimate claim in order to try and milk the system for a few bucks. I believe that the company has no incentive to truly target only serious injury victims.

Of course, they may occasionally stumble on a significant case. But can they do it often enough to justify the price tag of the service? I doubt it.

PROBLEM #2: All Or Nothing Practice Areas / No Ability To Narrow Focus

One of the problems with XXXs program is that it does not allow attorney͛s to exclude personal injury case types which are outside of a law firm’s practice areas.

The XXX‘s XXX advertising seeks to attract: birth-related; car accident; construction; dog bite; head and brain; maritime and boating; medical malpractice; motorcycle accident; nursing home neglect; product liability; slip and fall; talcum powder; truck accident; work related; and wrongful death cases. And if you buy into XXX‘s program you’ll be paying for leads in all those categories—even if you don’t accept some of those cases types.

Buried in a portion of the contract that is about complying with advertising claims and local bar association guidelines is language that obligates the buyer to accept all leads.

PURCHASER agrees to accept all advertising responses forwarded by COMPANY…6

This prevents the law firm from rejecting leads for which there is insufficient contact information, etc. And allows XXX to use non-leads to fulfill the terms of the contract.

Of the 15 different case types mentioned above, my firm only accepts cases from seven of the categories. When I asked XXX‘s ‘Director of Product’ why they don’t allow customers to focus on only the kinds of cases they actually want she didn’t have a good answer.

She tried to spin it as a positive by saying that I could re-sell the unwanted leads to someone else for a referral fee. What?!? Fifty-three percent (53%) of the case types are irrelevant to my practice but I should be okay with that because I might be able to pass them off for a few bucks?

When I am thirsty for a soda should I buy a six-pack; drink one; then stand on the street and try to sell the other five? Who does business this way in any other industry?

She then tried to say that most of the leads would be cases that we could take. So I asked for a count of number of leads in each category over a two-month period (4/26-6/26/201 ) for the geographies that they were trying to sell to me. The table comes directly from an email she sent to me.

Table from RWL email dated 06/27/16. "Lead type from 4/26-6/26/2016."

Table #1: Data from email dated 06/27/16. “Lead type from 4/26-6/26/2016.”7

One-hundred forty-six leads over a two month period?!

REALITY CHECK: They had previously told me that I could expect somewhere between 11 and 20 leads per month for the geographies that we were discussing.

During a phone call the following day I questioned her about the discrepancy.  She admitted that the table showed data for the entire state, not just the geographies that they were trying to sell me.

What good is the state-wide data when I wasn’t being offered a state-wide package?  Why had they given me state-wide numbers without explaining that they were state-wide?

Examining the state-wide numbers that she shared offered no real insight into the types of leads that could be expected or the quality of those leads (see my analysis tables below). There were a large number of leads labeled either “accident general” or “personal injury (general)”—so it is impossible to know what kinds of cases they were.

Another group of leads were labeled “toll free” or “TV”. Again offering no specific explanation about the case type. When I asked about those leads she said that they came in via an 800 number and/or TV ads and the operators don’t ask about the case type (see section of this blog article regarding qualification).

Thus I had no way of knowing much about 55% of the leads.

When I voiced my concerns they responded by offering me a 600 lead guarantee.  It felt like they were trying to distract me from the issue.  I didn’t feel that they were being transparent.

More information about my thoughts on the guarantee will be discussed later in this article.

PROBLEM #3: The Numbers Don’t Add Up To A Reasonable Cost Per Lead / Cost Per Case

Based on the information they had shared with me, 34% of the leads in the data sample they shared were outside of our practice areas. From the information available it would appear that only 12% of the leads are in our practice areas. If you assume that at least half of the “unknown” leads are in our practice areas then maybe 39% of the leads would have potential value to our firm.  See table #2.

Our boutique law firm has very high case criteria. Typically only 7% of the contacts our firm receives meet our case criteria and actually become a case. So that further narrows the number of leads that might actually turn into cases.  See table #2.

Analysis of lead count based on available information; our firm's case criteria; and case acceptance rate.

Tables #2: Analysis of lead count based on available information; our firm’s case criteria; and case acceptance rate.

Based on my calculations, we could expect to sign up only 0.41 cases per month from XXX-provided leads.  Our cost per lead would be $667.  But given that a high percentage of the leads would be outside of our practice areas the actual cost per lead needs to be recalculated.  The projected cost per in-practice-area-leads would be $1,708.  See table #3.

Since our case acceptance rate is roughly 7%, our projected cost per new case would be $24,394.  We would need to get at least $24,394 in attorneys fees to seemingly break even.  But when you consider the staffing costs associated with case management, we would actually lose money unless the attorney fees were considerably higher than $24,394.  See table #3.

Of course, a sales person might say, “One great case will pay for it all.”  To find out what I think about that nonsense read my blog post entitled One Good Case Will Pay For It All: The #1 Most Misleading Message That Legal Marketing Salespeople Use On Attorneys.

Frankly, I have lots of other marketing program options in which the cost per lead and the cost per case are economically much, much more attractive than this.

I went on to analyze the data further by making some guesses at what the average case settlement value and average settlement value of the projected cases would be.  I decided to be very conservative in my estimates—it is far better to under estimate the value of a program than over estimate it.  So I assumed only a $50,000 value per case and only a 25% attorney fee.  As you can see below, those numbers proved that the program would run at an ROI deficit of $117,021.  Although the ‘guarantee addendum’ would allow for a $71,644 profit, the contract language left the time period when the guarantee would be filled open ended.   So there is no way to know when that ROI could be realized.  Therefore I can’t really include that information in consideration for the final analysis of the opportunity.

RWL-analysisA

Tables #3: Cost per lead and cost per case analysis of program based on information provided by XXX.

In the tables (Tables #4) below you will see that I also ran a scenario where the average settlement value was $75,000 and the average attorney fee was 33% which showed that the potential ROI of the program (not considering the guarantee addendum) would only be $3,499.

RWL-analysisC.PNG

Tables #4: Cost per lead and cost per case analysis of program based on information provided by XXX but with different settlement value and attorney fee assumptions.

PROBLEM #4: Lack Of References

XXX has been in business for over 30 years. They claim to have been helping attorneys in my region, and across the country, build lucrative practices for decades. So why can’t they provide three references?

I repeatedly asked for three references that I could actually speak with. I asked that at least one be located in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Northern California).

But XXX staff members kept directing me to a page on their website that has just ten short quotes from attorneys.8  Many of the attorneys look very young, in my opinion. And young attorneys often aren’t very discriminating about the kinds of cases they will take.

In the end, they did provide me with contact information for one attorney that I could actually speak with–an attorney in Portland, Maine.  When I pressed for a reference from somewhere in the Pacific Northwest I got the following response in an email from someone who’s title is Account Executive Manager.

“The problem with getting a reference in your “market” or in the Northwest area is that they are all currently taking the calls that you’ll be taking when you start in our program. To them, that’s direct competition for the work that up until now they have been taking, and that is why we go with out of market references for new attorneys coming into our program to speak with.”9

So I am supposed to believe that there is not one attorney customer (past or present) anywhere in the Pacific Northwest that wants to speak with me because they all think of my firm as a competitor? I have to believe that it is more likely that they don’t have anyone in my region that would have anything good to say about them?

So I contacted a friend who is an attorney in Seattle who I know used XXX for about 18 months. He responded to me via text saying, “Yes I have used them. But I will never use them again..͟”  When I spoke with him later he said that maybe 5% of the leads͛ XXX gave him were actually a real case.

PROBLEM #5 (Gigantic Problem): Conflicting information regarding lead quantity expectations. And contract language that would allow for an unspecified term for fulfillment: delivery of leads.

As stated elsewhere in this article, they then gave me data for these areas that demonstrated no history of that number of leads being produced on a reliable basis. When I questioned this apparent discrepancy I was told that the gap would be filled by “bonus leads” from adjacent unsold territories. However, when I pressed them on two points they offered no believable reply.

The first point was that if they were to secure buyers for the adjacent territories those “bonus leads” would dry up. They said that they would not make any effort to sell the adjoining regions. Am I really supposed to believe that a for-profit business is going not attempt to find a buyer for unsold inventory?

The second point was that the term “bonus” is a misnomer if the leads from adjacent areas were being used to achieve the promised number of purchased leads. The term “bonus” means value over and above what has been purchased. Bonus means free. When I challenged their use of the term they admitted that “bonus” didn’t really apply and was misused.

Additionally, when I pressed for more specific data for the geographies they were trying to sell to me, they then offered larger numbers which they later admitted (after I question the data multiple times) were actually state-wide results. Such conflicting data points caused me to question the truthfulness of any of the information.

I asked a lot of specific questions about the data and pointed out the numerous conflicts during a conference call with there XXX staff members. Sensing my growing hesitation, the XXX team then threw out another, new number: 600 guaranteed leads for the same price.

What?!?!?! Given all the numbers I’d be presented this far, how can they suddenly promise 600 leads?

The basic XXX Contact Quote: “If COMPANY fails to meet this minimum, the parties agree to extend the term of this Agreement until the minimum is achieved, at no additional cost to PURCHASER, contingent on all PURCHASER͛S accounts with COMPANY being current.10

The language of the contract would allow XXX to provide an unspecified number of leads during the 24 month term. And it would “guarantee” that XXX would eventually deliver 600 leads—but within no specific length of time or by any specific date—in other words, someday whenever they ever get around to it. But only if I had paid them the full $240,000 (payments made on time every month for 24 months).

PROBLEM #6: Lead acquisition costs.

The advertising media may include, but are not limited to, television broadcasts on local broadcast stations and/or through cable or network broadcast systems, search engine listings on local and/or national search engines, any and all existing electronic advertisements and future electronic advertisements as advertising in new electronic mediums develop and become available, radio, billboards or print. The timing and purchasing of all advertisements shall be exclusively at COMPANY’S discretion.11

My basic problem with this portion of the XXX contract is that the cost to acquire a lead from the mediums above can vary widely. And the contract language allows XXX to obtain leads in any manner they choose. I would assume that any for profit business in XXX’s position would choose the most cost effective lead source. Therefore, they could obtain a lead for as little as $25 and make an exorbitantly large mark-up. Why would I want to contractually allow them to over-charge?

PROBLEM #7: Payment terms that are more rigid than typical industry standards.

The RWL contract states that payments “…not received by COMPANY within five (5) calendar days of the due date for such Payment, a Late Charge equaling ten percent (10%) of such Payment shall be added.”12

These terms are more stringent than the 30 or 60 day payment terms which are standard for most types of advertising such as TV, radio, print, etc.

PROBLEM #8: Exclusivity Loop Hole

The XXX website and messages from the sales team stress the fact that leads are exclusive.

Their website states, “We deal in exclusivity. We contract with only one firm per geographic area and that firm will receive every single lead from the areas where they subscribe. With advertising competition increasing yearly, our subscribers are protected from sharing the same leads with other attorneys.”13

But the contract language conveniently provides XXX with a loophole that allows them to route leads to whomever they choose.

PURCHASER hereby releases all claims, or other rights it now has or may have in the future against COMPANY, its officers, directors, employees, agents and shareholders, for any liability, damage or injury for lost opportunities or prospective advantage, suffered or incurred by PURCHASER as a result of delays, errors or omissions by COMPANY, in the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the COMPANY or its employees, and/or agents negligently forwarding inquiries within PURCHASER͛S zip code area to a person or entity which does not have the right to receive calls from said zip code area…14

The above contractual language allows XXX to fail to deliver to you leads that generated in your designated area. In fact, it allows them to deliver a lead that was generated from within a specific geography to any firm (located anywhere) it chooses.

If an area is not generating a sufficient number of leads, XXX can simply steal/move leads. If an area is generating a surplus of leads they can reroute elsewhere. Or if a GREAT lead comes along it can be referred by XXX to another firm for association—which could potentially result in a large fee for XXX.

PROBLEM #9: Additional Performance Loop Holes

In addition to the loop holes mentioned above, the XXX contract contains other language which relieves XXX of any responsibility to deliver the promised leads. Examples of language include…

PURCHASER agrees that COMPANY shall not be liable for any consequential, indirect or punitive damages arising out of any breach, delay or default in performance of this Agreement…” 15

Neither party shall be liable to the other for failure or delay in performance hereunder except for the payment…͟16

I think that language speaks for itself.

PROBLEM #10: Hush Clause

A Non-Disparagement or Protection of Reputation clause in a contract restricts individuals from taking any action that negatively impacts an organization, its reputation, products, services, management or employees—like writing a bad review. In 2014 the State of California (where XXX is located) passed a new law that states a “contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.”17

The XXX contract has cleverly worked around the California hush clause ban. The contract prevents customers from sharing their experiences with the company by calling any and all information about the company as “confidential information and trade secrets”.

During the term of this Agreement, PURCHASER may acquire confidential information and trade secrets from COMPANY, including, but not limited to, the following: business operations; sales data; pricing information; customer lists; products and services marketed or used by COMPANY; marketing analytical data, advertising design and costs; contracts; production methods; demographic data, market area design and definition; call processing methods, controls and organization; call detail listings and distribution; and media reports and performance listings, etc. PURCHASER hereby agrees not to use or disclose any such confidential information and trade secrets directly or indirectly to any person without prior written consent of COMPANY.”18

PROBLEM #11: Internet Research On XXX Was Not Reassuring

IN addition the data that XXX provided to me and the information I found on their website, I also combed the internet in search of anything that I could find written about the company by customers and former employees.  Here are just a few of the tidbits I found.  Click on the links to see the web pages referenced.

  • Redacted Text & Removed Link. Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals. XX July 20XX. Justia Law. Justia, n.d. Web.
  • Redacted Text & Removed Link., Texas State, Lamar County, 62nd District Court. XX Mar. 19XX. DocketAlarm.com. Docket Alarm, Inc., n.d. Web.
  • Redacted Text & Removed Link., and Redacted Text. Redacted Text. Supreme Court of Alabama Redacted Text (19XX). XX Mar. 19XX. Justia Law. Justia, n.d. Web.
  • Redacted Text, Mark. “Redacted Text & Removed Link: Cluephone Ringing; It’s For You.” Defending People. Redacted Text, XXApr. 20XX.
  • Redacted Text, Mark. “It’s Thursday, and ed LiRedacted Text & Removnk Still Lies.Defending People. BRedacted Text, XX Jan. 20XX. Web.
  • Redacted Text, Mark. “Redacted Text & Removed Link Raises Its Ugly Head Again.” Defending People. Redacted Text, XX Feb. 20XX. Web.
  • Former, Employee. “Redacted Text & Removed Link – Most Employees Are Short Lived….” Glassdoor. N.p., 5 Nov. 20XX. Web.
  • Redacted Text & Removed Link.” 800Notes. N.p., XX Mar. 20XX. Web.
  • Redacted Text & Removed Link.” CareerBliss. N.p., n.d. Web. XX July 20XX.
  • Redacted Text , John. “Google Review of Redacted Text & Removed Link.Google. N.p., n.d. Web. XX July 20XX.

Conclusion

As I mentioned in the beginning, I personally believe that the XXX program offers no real value to my firm.  Our boutique law firm has relatively high case criteria and a narrow practice area focus.  And, of course, we have an in-house marketing team which does a great job of generating leads and cases at a lower cost than the XXX program.

A high-volume firm that has lower case criteria and accepts a broader range of personal injury case types may find the XXX offering valuable.  Or a firm that does not have an in-house marketing team and wants a done-for-you marketing lead generation program might find the service essential.

The views and opinions expressed in this review article are based on my own experience and our firm’s business model.  Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples.

When evaluating marketing opportunities, I strongly encourage you to dig deep and ask a lot of questions; don’t allow your self to be pressured by salespeople; go over the contract with a fine tooth comb; and thoroughly analyze the data.

This article was posted on: 07/18/16.  To read an update to this blog post dated 07/22/16 click here.

Sources

*”State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Redacted TextP.C. Et Al, Redacted Text, No. Redacted Text (E.D.Mich. Sep. 3, Redacted Text) Exhibit #10–Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT” DocketAlarm.com. Docket Alarm, Inc., XX Sept. Redacted Text. Web. MOTION to Compel RESPONSES TO SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO NONPARTIES Redacted Text by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

  1. “Program Overview,Redacted Text: Personal Injury Advertising & Lead Generation. Redacted Text., n.d. Web. XX July 20XX. http://www.Redacted Text.aspx
  2. Redacted Text., Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Page 1, Item #3. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  3. Redacted Text., Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Page 4, Section #15. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  4. Redacted Text., Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #17, Item #4. XX January 20XX9 Contract Redacted Text.
  5. Redacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #15. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  6. Redacted Text., Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Page 2, Section #3. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  7. Email message from Director of Product. “Seattle Reports.” Message to Mischelle Davis. XX June 20XX, 3:‎23‎ ‎PM. E-mail.
  8. “Attorney Reviews,Redacted Text: Personal Injury Advertising & Lead Generation. Redacted Text Inc., n.d. Web. XX July 20XX. http://www.Redacted Text.aspx#
  9. Email message from Account Executive Manager. “Re: Seattle Reports.” Message to Mischelle Davis. XX June 20XX, 7:‎29‎ ‎AM. E-mail.
  10. Redacted Text., Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Page 2, Section #3. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  11. LRedacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #15. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  12. Redacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #5, XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  13. “Program Overview.” Redacted Text: Personal Injury Advertising & Lead Generation. Redacted Text Inc., n.d. Web. XX July 20XX. http://www.Redacted Text.aspx
  14. Redacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 3, Section #9. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  15. Redacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #16. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  16. Redacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section #18. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.
  17. Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.8(a)(1)
  18. LRedacted Text, Inc. Redacted Text ADVERTISING SERVICES AGREEMENT. Terms and Conditions, Page 3, Section #8. XX January 20XX Contract Redacted Text.

One response to “REVIEW: Evaluation of Attorney Group Public Media Advertising Service

  1. Michelle,
    What a fantastic detailed analysis of why this program was not for you and your firm. It went way beyond the typical review that usually speaks in generalities. My own experience chatting with these folks many years ago also raised inconsistencies in their sales pitches, their promises and their written materials. Thanks for explaining a thoroughly researched and well written article why this program was not right for you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s