From a Houston Press article about Houston DWI lawyer Tyler Flood:
Flood pays someone to keep up his Google search rankings. . . . He has reviewed himself on Yahoo (five out of five stars): “Tyler Flood is one of the smartest lawyers I have ever met…reasonably priced also!”
(Here’s the profile giving Tyler that review.)
Tags: Tyler Flood
This entry was posted by Mark Bennett
on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pm and is filed under advertising, criminal defense lawyers, ethics and/or professionalism, marketing.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
About The Author
Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.
So I gave it a thumbs down. A review isn’t helpful when it comes from the lawyer whom it is about. (And, it is arguably deceitful. In fact, I think it isn’t even an argument – it is deceitful.) I’m just saying . . .
The most charitable idea I can think of is that he believes in himself? But maybe not. If he wasn’t insecure, couldn’t he wait for clients to say good things about him? Well, some people don’t think a good reputation is earned anymore? Is this what getting old means, when you start shrugging and shaking your head a lot, and saying I was trained that a lawyers word is her bond?
A quick question (because I honestly do not know): Isn’t the self-review (if done in a manner intended to deceive clients) violative of the rules of conduct?
I thought that we attorneys had an ethical (and moral) responsibility to be candid and forthright. Maybe my standards are a bit high. I have lately seen some incredibly bizarre conduct from attorneys which I just don’t understand.
When I was a baby lawyer, law was often referred to as “the gentlemanly practice of” and I have been privileged enough to have known some butt-kicking, but very gentlemanly (or womanly as it were) attorneys who never lost the advantage in a case s the result of their civility, honesty or integrity.
I suppose this is changing, yet I will continue to lament at its passing.
I just have to point out that the review was clearly posted by “Tyler F,” which suggests to me that it was intended as a joke. Plus, if he was really trying to conceal his identity as the reviewer would he have posted that picture of himself at a disco with a cat?
Thanks, Sarah. Some days I’ve got no sensayuma.