Svitlana Sangara believed she could bolster her L.A. law practice by photoshopping her image into photos with various celebrities and politicians and posting them on her firm's website. The California State Bar was not amused. It's seeking to suspend her from the practice of law for six months for deceptive advertising according to TMZ. Whoever did the photoshopping work was pretty good, if not for the poor taste in some of the celebrities and politicians chosen to promote her practice.
5 comments:
Any remedy should be the celebrity's. This is merely California bending over backwards to kowtow to Hollywood.
How is this false advertising for a lawyer? The lawyer isn't saying "I know George Clooney, so I'll win your case." That's what false advertising looks like for a lawyer. A lawyer must make some sort of promise regarding the representation that's untrue.
Was she trying to lure actors to her professional agency practice? No. Her web page says she does civil litigation.
Really, why would anyone become a lawyer? If you're a lawyer, you voluntarily surrender your constitutional rights and you let the government get involved in every last thing you do.
Late on your bills? Suspend your license. Get in a bar fight? Suspend your license. Take an unpopular political position? Suspend your license. Criticize the government? Suspend your license. Be too good at advocating for your clients? Suspend your license. Not caught up on child support? Suspend your license. Have sex with a colleague or a client? Suspend your license.
Why would anyone want to become a lawyer? Any thing you do has a second level of punishment if you're a lawyer. Things that are perfectly legal can get your law license suspended.
Can lawyers not imagine a better way to earn a living?
Only in California can they worry about such petty matters. The California government already gets involved in excessive regulation. That petty matter should be left to any who were offended to seek recourse, not government intervention.
Here in Indiana we have convicted criminals who still have their law license, and a former judge elibible to serve as a judicial officer after documented profiteering by having government paid court staff pass out her information on performing weddings at an inflated cost.
Which is more worthy of disbarment, license suspension, or permanent removal from the judiciary?
2:33,
The answer is obvious: the greatest threat to the legal system is Paul Ogden for complaining about the judicial system, itself.
In America, you can complain about how your NFL team is doing, but you can never complain about the government.
She intentionally manipulated her Goodwill by making it appear that she was fully vetted by politicians, movie stars, etc, implying she either has full access to them, represent them, or have been approved by them when it's not true.
If it werent a commercial advertising full 1st amendment rights would apply; but it's not, it's commercial speech and therefore must be truthful and not deceptive.
Dozens of celebrity pictures with the business owner photoshopped into them and then placed on the business website is not only clearly deceptive but totally unethical toward the celebrities.
3:52,
You must go nuts when you watch Forrest Gump.
Post a Comment