# Attention, TV/Hollywood writers: Lawyers are not allowed to "ambulance-chase" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 24, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636 "2011-06-24T00:11:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/1 "2011-06-24T00:11:50Z")
I’ve been practicing plaintiffs’ personal-injury law for the past three years. It ain’t a highly respected field of practice, it’s one of the few fields actually subject to a hostile political movement (“tort reform” – see [here](http://www.amazon.com/Blocking-Courthouse-Door-Republican-Corporate/dp/0743277007) for the Straight Dope on that; but this ain’t GD nor the Pit). Anyway, it only makes things worse when people have misconceptions about it. On this week’s ep of _Franklin & Bash,_ the title pair are having coffee, hear a crash, and immediately run outside to give their card-and-spiel to one of the drivers. The joke is that both he and the other driver agree it was **his** fault, but F&B are thinking to blame it on a distracting TV-sign with a scantily-clad woman. Now, regardless of whether you think that’s funny, you, and the writers and directors, should know: Lawyers can’t **do** that. They can’t approach a potential client on the scene of an accident. It’s professionally unethical. It’s against the rules. It’s called [barratry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chaser) (one of four legal meanings of the term, actually). A hard-up enough lawyer **might** do it, sure – the shamefaced way Paul Newman crashed a funeral in _The Verdict,_ not blithely and publicly like F&B. From the [Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct:](http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/99855EBF1EDE4BF0852574F6005AC724) > [@](#): > > a) Solicitation. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. A lawyer shall not permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf. A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes (i) any written form of communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule, and (ii) any electronic mail communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (c) of rule 4-7.6. > > (b) Written Communication Sent on an Unsolicited Basis. > > ``` > (1) A lawyer shall not send, or knowingly permit to be sent, on the lawyer’s behalf or on behalf of the lawyer’s firm or partner, an associate, or any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm, an unsolicited written communication directly or indirectly to a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if: > > (A) the written communication concerns an action for personal injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident or disaster involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a relative of that person, unless the accident or disaster occurred more than 30 days prior to the mailing of the communication; > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/2 "2011-06-24T00:16:59Z")
Look at that. I can’t believe the TV people didn’t catch that. I don’t think there’s ever been a case where TV deviated from reality before. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/3 "2011-06-24T00:23:02Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Look at that. I can’t believe the TV people didn’t catch that. I don’t think there’s ever been a case where TV deviated from reality before. Look, we ain’t talkin’ about Bones being given the wrong technical name to say for a bone injury. This is an **easy** one. I’m just astonished how this ambulance-chasing meme has achieved such unchallenged UL status. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/4 "2011-06-24T00:32:33Z")
Actually, I’ve never seen it actually shown except in **The Verdict**. It’s a very rare occurred on TV, just like it’s a rare occurrence in real life. But here’s a concept you seem to have missed: TV shows are not real. They do not portray real events or real people. What they do is try to tell an entertaining story, and, you see, sometimes that requires that you use what is known as “dramatic licence,” a concept that means that you portray things in the most dramatic way possible to make the story more entertaining and meaningful. This sort of thing has gone on since the Greeks and is an standard part of the dramatic repertoire. If you have problems with it, then maybe you should stick to documentaries. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/5 "2011-06-24T00:37:09Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Actually, I’ve never seen it actually shown except in **The Verdict**. It’s a very rare occurred on TV, just like it’s a rare occurrence in real life. > > But here’s a concept you seem to have missed: TV shows are not real. They do not portray real events or real people. What they do is try to tell an entertaining story, and, you see, sometimes that requires that you use what is known as “dramatic licence,” a concept that means that you portray things in the most dramatic way possible to make the story more entertaining and meaningful. This sort of thing has gone on since the Greeks and is an standard part of the dramatic repertoire. If you have problems with it, then maybe you should stick to documentaries. I know all that, and I know that even arguable abuses of dramatic license are fair grounds for the trekkiest of nitpickery. At least that’s the consensus in CS. Look, if a TV show perpetuated some invidious racial/ethnic stereotype by portraying it as an established fact, there would be . . . fuss. This isn’t anywhere near as bad, but it is the same kind of thing and you don’t need to be a lawyer to see how. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/6 "2011-06-24T01:45:22Z")
You’re talking about _Franklin & Bash_, the comedy about the frat-boy lawyer that plays-fast-and-loose-with-the-rules-but-always-comes-out-on-top? Isn’t this basically like calling shenanigans on the depiction of the habits of nuclear power technicians shown on _The Simpsons_? “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would _never_ permit such sloppiness!” I haven’t actually seen an episode, but the promos for _Franklin & Bash_ make it out to be an off-the-wall _"I Can’t Believe They’re Lawyers!_" comedy series without so much of a whiff of proceduralist sensibility. Am I that off base? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/7 "2011-06-24T01:59:48Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > You’re talking about _Franklin & Bash_, the comedy about the frat-boy lawyer that plays-fast-and-loose-with-the-rules-but-always-comes-out-on-top? Actually, I dunno, never watched it before. But from one ep I can tell it ain’t no sitcom – more a dramedy like _L.A. Law_ than _Night Court_ – and I would **not** give _L.A. Law_ a pass on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/8 "2011-06-24T02:04:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, I dunno, never watched it before. But from one ep I can tell it ain’t no sitcom – more a dramedy like _L.A. Law_ than _Night Court_ – and I would **not** give _L.A. Law_ a pass on this one. No, **Larry Mudd** is correct. Previous episodes included one where the lawyer made out with a woman while she was testifying in court. She was fired from a Maxim-type of magazine for being unattractive, and he wanted to convey to the jury that she was very good looking. I think another episode had a female defendant or plaintiff flash the courtroom as a distracting tactic. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/9 "2011-06-24T02:34:57Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > No, **Larry Mudd** is correct. Previous episodes included one where the lawyer made out with a woman while she was testifying in court. She was fired from a Maxim-type of magazine for being unattractive, and he wanted to convey to the jury that she was very good looking. I think another episode had a female defendant or plaintiff flash the courtroom as a distracting tactic. Nothing I ain’t seen on _L.A. Law._ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/10 "2011-06-24T02:44:06Z")
OK, right now I’m watching the premier of this new show _Suits_ where a kid who has no law degree (nor bachelor’s – got expelled from college for selling papers), but who **did** pass the New York Bar Exam (a friend bet him nobody who had not been to law school could pass it), gets hired by a silk-stocking NY law firm because a flamboyant partner took a liking to him and is willing to tell the uppers the kid graduated from Harvard Law (this firm only hires Harvard Law grads). The premise is that the kid is a supergenius and picked it all up from independent study. Fine, I can buy that. Thing is, the guy who hired him is worried only about getting caught lying about the Harvard thing. No mention is made of the fact that it is **illegal for this kid to practice law. He has no license.** Passing the exam is one thing, and getting admitted to the Bar is another; there is always background investigation. He wouldn’t pass that part. What’s more, I know of no state where you can **sit** for the Bar Exam without first earning a law degree. Which generally you cannot do without first earning a bachelor’s degree. What’s more: The first case they give him is a “pro bono” one, a sexual-harassment case. No, sir, that’s a **contingency-fee** kinda case. Never heard of a legal aid clinic litigating one, though I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_A.Robrin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sam_a.robrin/32/14497_2.png) [@Sam\_A.Robrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_A.Robrin)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/11 "2011-06-24T02:50:31Z")
Since when does anyone involved with the law actually follow the law anymore, if they’re inconvenienced by it? They just bull ahead, do as they please, _say_ they’re following the law if they’re called on it and feel like responding, and know there’ll be no consequences. It’s all over YouTube, so I’m not surprised it’s finally being acknowledged on network TV. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/12 "2011-06-24T02:54:06Z")
> [@Sam\_A.Robrin](#): > > Since when does anyone involved with the law actually follow the law anymore, if they’re inconvenienced by it? They just bull ahead, do as they please, _say_ they’re following the law if they’re called on it and feel like responding, and know there’ll be no consequences. It’s all over YouTube, so I’m not surprised it’s finally being acknowledged on network TV. Whatever persons “involved with the law” you’re describing here, they ain’t attorneys. Attorneys **can’t get away** with that. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/13 "2011-06-24T02:59:07Z")
Showing incedental ambulance-chasing is a worse crime than the kinda-jury tampering they got away with? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/14 "2011-06-24T02:59:31Z")
I learned of this recently when I passed by a bad fender bender and saw a guy getting out of his car and handing the woman whose car had been hit his card, then driving off. I mentioned it to a lawyer friend who said “I’m not saying there aren’t sharks in the profession, but I can almost guarantee you that if he was a lawyer he was just giving her his contact info as a witness to the accident because it would be too many hells of trouble on him if it was found that he was ambulance chasing. And besides, class action torts is what ambulance chasing used to be and pays a lot more.” Is it at least true that in a criminal trial if a defense lawyer asks a series of questions that seems completely irrelevant and the prosecution objects that the judge will usually say “I’m going to give you some leeway, but you better show relevance” and that it’s alright so long as the person breaks down and confesses either to the crime or to perjury? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/15 "2011-06-24T03:02:56Z")
Even though TV and movies bend and break the rules of professions for the sake of a laugh or drama, it is still disappointing. I know why they do it, and I also know if I wrote TV I’d do it too, but it’s still a shame that they can’t work with the facts more often. I watched the first ep of the new season of _Drop Dead Diva_, and though it has fantasy at its heart, and is basically a soppy girly show, the way they stretched the rules on Court procedure was really bad this time. It drew attention to itself, it was that absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/16 "2011-06-24T03:04:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s called [barratry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chaser) (one of four legal meanings of the term, actually). I just had to hijack this one. Mrs. Cad once had to fire her second-in-command (private security and not on a ship) who had a history of gross misconduct. One of the causes (along with all of the documentation) given on the termination paperwork was barratry. The lady from the unemployment office called Mrs. Cad and asked what barratry was and she explained that it is gross misconduct of a master or a master’s mate. The lady from UI said she had never heard of that but liked it. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/17 "2011-06-24T03:28:39Z")
They don’t have to do this. They just go on TV and say “Mr Jones, got me $200,000 for my back injury.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/18 "2011-06-24T03:36:24Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Is it at least true that in a criminal trial if a defense lawyer asks a series of questions that seems completely irrelevant and the prosecution objects that the judge will usually say “I’m going to give you some leeway, but you better show relevance” and that it’s alright so long as the person breaks down and confesses either to the crime or to perjury? Don’t know, I’ve never done criminal trials above the traffic-court level. But, one legal maxim I remember from my first semester of law school is, “You can never suck up to the judge too much.” You **don’t** do anything that might annoy them if you can avoid it. I wouldn’t try it, and if I did I would be sure to show relevance **immediately.** Not even a jury trial is like a TV show, where you want to foreshadow and hint for dramatic effect; just get it all out there. In fact, you want the jury to hear your message as early and often as possible. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/19 "2011-06-24T04:39:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What’s more, I know of no state where you can **sit** for the Bar Exam without first earning a law degree [Guess what](http://www.slate.com/id/2108397/). (OK, to be fair, New York’s program requires one year of law school before you can apprentice. But a JD is not required to sit for the NY bar.) ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636/20 "2011-06-24T07:13:53Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Actually, I’ve never seen it actually shown except in **The Verdict**. It’s a very rare occurred on TV, just like it’s a rare occurrence in real life. Another cinematic example is in _The Rainmaker_, where Danny DeVito’s shifty paralegal aggressively ambulance chases in a hospital. Though to be fair it is shown as being highly unethical. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-tv-hollywood-writers-lawyers-are-not-allowed-to-ambulance-chase/586636.md?page=2)