Ambulance chaser

Origin

The term 'ambulance chaser' is a derisive term for an unethical attorney who solicits business at the scenes of accidents or in hospitals, in exchange for a percentage of the damages that will be recovered in the case."[West's Encyclopedia of American Law, The Gale Group, Inc, 1998.]", Answers.com 15 Jul. 2006

The orgins of this phrase dates from 1897, and stems from newspaper articles about attorneys seeking clients through targeted mail solicitation."[Etymonline.com]" 15 Jul. 2006The stories told of attorneys who would request accident reports and other public records, then mail letters to accident victims and others offering their services. "[Lawyer Solicitation]", Florida State Bar Association, August 2004 "Ambulance chasing" was one of the descriptive phrases employed by the media for this activity. It later became a derogatory term for direct advertising.

Lawyer Advertising and US First Amendment Issues

The United States Supreme Court in a series of landmark decisons has consistently held lawyers do not forfeit their right to freedom of speech by merely being lawyers and that freedom of speech guaranteed under the first amendment to the United States Constitution includes the right to advertise, although state bar associations retain a right to regulate, but not ban such advertising. See [Bates v. State Bar of Arizona], [In re Primus] and [Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn].

The Supreme Court has upheld the right to advertise in other professions as well, e.g. [Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.].

Defamation

Though some people believe this term's use should be protected as free-speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, others believe the term may be actionable under the civil laws for slander or libel. For instance, in [Flamm v. American Association of University Women], U.S. District Judge Denny Chin had dismissed Mr. Flamm's resulting lawsuit against AAUW, ruling that the comments, although "beyond the pale" and "seriously derogatory", were protected as expressions of opinion under the First Amendment. On appeal, however, a panel led by Judge Thomas Meskill reinstated the action, noting that the objectionable passage might be read as implying specific factual assertions relating to unethical solicitation of business, that it appeared in italics, and that the other entries in the directory were generally of a factual rather than opinion-based nature."["Ambulance chaser" label ruled defamatory.]", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, Jan. 6 2000

References