Pedo Law Gaining (visual) Respect

Nothing will stop the defense bar from its relentless pursuit of clients, including bad taste. Thanks to the watchful eye of the blog, the Texas defense firm of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye has been exposed for creating an unfortunately much-needed child pornography defense practice. This in and of itself is not so objectionable, but the now-removed “just or about to be abused-child” images used on the firm’s website to promote this specialty are.

Family Violence, Rape and Sexual Assault, it’s all there in visually provocative images. Check it out at the blog.

6 Replies to "Pedo Law Gaining (visual) Respect"

  • James R. Marsh
    December 7, 2009 (11:25 am)

    For an update on this story visit the Texas Lawyer.

    In a Nov. 25 post, the Above the Law blog mentioned the photos and numerous other blogs followed the story.
    Above the Law noted that a photo of a pigtailed girl accompanying Lindeman Alvarado’s description of its “Child Sexual Assault & Internet Solicitation of a Minor Defense” practice was a “little off.” The blog also pointed out a photo of a troubled-looking woman wrapped in a robe illustrating the firm’s “Rape and Sexual Assault Defense” practice; one of a hand over the mouth of a young girl to illustrate the firm’s “Family Violence Defense” practice; and a photo of a suitcase filled with white packages illustrating the firm’s “Interstate and International Drug Charges Defense” practice.
    The stock photos in question were added to the firm’s web site in April by FindLaw, which Lindeman, Alvarado had hired to revamp and expand the firm’s site, Lindeman says. Lindeman, Alvarado partner Charles B. “Brad” Frye says the project cost the firm about $30,000.
    No one had ever questioned the photos, Lindeman says. But on Nov. 25, someone e-mailed the firm the link to the Above the Law post.

  • James R. Marsh
    December 7, 2009 (11:29 am)

    Actually, now that I’ve read further, there’s even more to this story:

    Lindeman says the criticism of his firm’s site came out of the blue. He acknowledges that the photos don’t work for a firm such as his that does criminal-defense and civil litigation work, adding that the images seem to be more appropriate for a victims’ assistance office.
    “They are disturbing in the sense they are taken with individuals shown in extreme circumstances and situations where they would be essentially victims of crime,” he says of the photos. They were not images a defense firm should use on its site, “and that’s why they were wrong for our site.”
    Lindeman says the firm has not lost any business because of the brouhaha over the photos, and in fact, the bloggers brought a lot of attention to the firm. He says 40 percent of the traffic to the firm’s site in November came through a link from Above the Law.
    To top things off, on Dec. 2, Lindeman says he learned that his firm had failed to submit the web site to the State Bar of Texas Advertising Review Committee after the site was revamped in April, but the firm will do so in the near future. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct require that firm advertising content such as web sites be submitted to the committee for review.
    Lindeman says he mistakenly thought FindLaw had submitted it.
    “That’s the most embarrassing part of this, that we missed something. I’m still confident that they will approve what we have,” he says about the advertising review.
    Kim Davey, a spokeswoman for the Bar, says the Advertising Review Committee will send a nonfiling notice to the firm, and the firm will have a reasonable amount of time, as long as 20 days, to respond. The firm also will have to pay a $300 filing fee, instead of the regular $70 filing fee, because it did not seek prior approval.
    She says miscommunication between a firm and a third-party web site developer is not uncommon, but attorneys at the firm are responsible for seeking State Bar review for their firm’s web site.

  • TilliesMom
    January 5, 2010 (8:48 pm)

    It’s in poor taste to have that picture of a child up. It’s an offensive, disturbing, exploitative use of a child model, in the nature of child porn itself. I certainly hope the State Bar Advertising Review Committee will not allow it to remain up.

  • Flash Animations
    November 24, 2010 (5:36 pm)


  • Tulsa Courthouse
    December 18, 2010 (4:22 pm)

    WTF tooooooooooooooooooo

  • Mountain View Taxi Service
    March 8, 2011 (11:29 pm)