PI firm reprimanded for “irresponsible” radio spot as Law Society prepares £300k ad campaign

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

20 June 2013

Law Society: trialling radio adverts

A personal injury (PI) firm has been reprimanded for an “irresponsible” radio ad which encouraged accident victims to claim compensation “irrespective of injury”.

The news comes ahead of a £300,000 Law Society national advertising campaign, due to launch on Monday, that will promote PI lawyers and for the first time involve radio spots.

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered KL LLP, which trades as Secure Law, to withdraw its advert and told it “not to encourage those who were not injured to make personal injury claims”.

The investigation was prompted by a complaint which claimed the radio advert was irresponsible because it appeared to suggest uninjured people should claim compensation.

The ASA said the advert breached rules on social responsibility and harm and offence.

In the advert a woman telephones a man and asks why he’s late and if everything is OK.

He responds: “Yeah fine, I just had a little bump in the car.”

He then repeats he is “fine” and asks for Secure Law’s number.

He repeats that he is “fine” for a third time, before a voice over states: “If you’ve been in an accident, make the second person you call Secure Law. They offer a no-win no-fee scheme, give you 100% of your claim and an upfront payment of up to £1,500.”

The ASA adjudication said the firm’s response to the complaint was to argue that it “could not encourage someone to make a personal injury claim if they were not injured, because it would be censored by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and would in all probability be put out of business, if not convicted in a court of law”.

The ASA continued: “They had to produce medical evidence from a medical expert to confirm that an accident had caused an injury. They said the ad did not encourage listeners to make an injury claim, because it did not mention injury. They also said they handled non-injury aspects of motor accident claims.”

A complaint was also registered with the RACC – commercial radio’s advertising clearance body – which approved the advert on the grounds that it made only minor references to personal injuries and was therefore not irresponsible.

However, the ASA upheld the complaint, saying that it considered that the statement “If you’ve been in an accident, make the second person you call Secure Law” encouraged listeners involved in road traffic accidents to contact Secure Law to claim accident compensation.

It said: “We considered that the voice-over claims relating to a no-win no-fee claim and payment of £1,500 implied that they related to personal injury, although in the context of someone who had been in a car accident but was uninjured.

“It was not clear on what basis the man in the ad had grounds to claim accident compensation and we considered that the implicit message encouraged listeners to make a claim irrespective of injury.

“We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and breached the code.”

Secure Law did not return calls for comment.

The Law Society PI-specific campaign this year replaces its annual advertising that aims to encourage people to use solicitors more generally. The six-week push will involve online advertising and public relations, advertising at railways stations as well as inside thousands of buses and trains.

For the first time the society will be testing radio advertising in selected areas, and is also planning a YouTube video.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society said the campaign will cost “less than £2.30 per practicing certificate holder”. There are currently 126,000 practising certificate holders, which at £2.30 puts the cost at £290,000.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “PI firm reprimanded for “irresponsible” radio spot as Law Society prepares £300k ad campaign”

  1. What’s the point of the Law Soc spending £300k on PI lawyers advertising? That’s what I’d like the answer to.

    How are they going to measure the success?
    Why should PI lawyers be favoured over any other group of lawyers?
    Who decides this stuff at the Law Soc and are they qualified to do so?

  2. Boyd Butler on June 20th, 2013 at 11:59 pm
  3. Boyd,
    I suspect they feel guilty that they did nothing for 12 years and should never have removed the referral ban in the first place.
    They have created monsters in Pi firms who have grown up entirely from buying work from claim farmers. They are now twiddling their thumbs or getting into bed with farmers as ABS’s.

  4. Abdul hafezi on June 21st, 2013 at 7:31 am

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

New right to paid leave for bereaved parents: A welcome move

Kimberley Manning DAS

This year, like many in recent years, has seen some key changes within the employment law field, with the government, trade unions and lobbyists remaining endlessly engaged in seeking to impose their interpretation of fair balance between employers and their respective workforces. Although consensus on that equilibrium can never really be achieved, sometimes there are pieces of legislative movement which are difficult to argue with regardless of your perspective: This is one of those. Published on 13 October 2017, the Parental Bereavement (Pay and Leave) Bill would provide for the first time a legal right to parents who are employed and have suffered the death of a child, a minimum of two weeks’ leave in which to grieve.

November 20th, 2017