Nah.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML5vYxjKhL8
There is a dubious principle of advertising holding that as long as the name and the service come through memorably, an ad is a success. This video challenges that assumption. It tells me that the lawyer who let someone talk him into doing an apparently improvised ad with a smut-mouthed rubber sex doll is an idiot, and it is very risky to take legal advice from idiots. Nonetheless, there is nothing unethical about the ad. Does it hold the profession up to public ridicule? No, it holds this lawyer up to public ridicule.
Once upon a time, lawyer advertising was held to be unethical by all state bars, until courts found the restrictions to violate the First Amendment. This kind of ad was what the profession was worried about. A few states, notably Florida (the last I checked), still apply more stringent standards to lawyer advertising than currently apply to used cars and cheesemakers, but as long as an ad lawyer doesn’t make affirmative misrepresentations, it won’t be found to be in violation of the legal ethics rules.
Besides, ads like this one are extremely informative. They tell a potential client everything they need to know about the judgment, reputation and trustworthiness of the lawyer who stars in it. What could be more ethical than that?
_______________________
Pointer: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Ethics Alarms 
I couldn’t even watch this to the end. It’s wrong on so many levels I can’t believe it could be ethical.
But then, you probably missed the graphic at around 2:20 that implied that he or his firm was somehow connected with “The National Top 100 Trial Lawyers.” So, he, or one of the partners, must be good. (Good at what, well, that’s anyone’s guess. But that word, “Top,” sure is suspicious…)
They have been watching too much Breaking Bad.
Seems to me like maybe he lost a bet and was forced to do a commercial with a sex doll.
That must have been some bet. What would the other guy have to do, castrate himself?
Nah – probably an even odds bet. “Loser has to do his next add with this sex doll.”
Upon reflection, I think it was the DOLL who lost the bet…
1) Where did the ad run?
2) Even the local lawyer advertisements here don’t seem that amateurish, and they are pretty amateurish… he must have scraped the bottom getting a marketer or he really has horrible inspiration.
3) Maybe he knows the people of the Counties he’s reaching too well.
3) – what I was thinking. Thanks.
This is what “L.A. Law” has devolved to!
Sue the library???
Is there a relationship between tastelessness and ethics?