On to legal ethics: I can’t find any images of the sidewalk ads, but the Nutmeg State bar requires that any communication from a law firm must include the name of at least one lawyer with the firm. I doubt that the firm chalked that on the sidewalks, but they might have, I suppose. More of a problem is that all legal ads in that state need to be submitted for approval…Wait! That only applies to media ads! Is a sidewalk “media”? Lawyer are such clever SOBs.
Some states would have ethics problems with the whole concept of sidewalk ads. Florida, which is notoriously picky about lawyer advertising, bans ads that are “obtrusive.” That’s vague, but I think sidewalk ads would qualify. The main ethical problem with Trantolo & Trantolo emulating Bert the Chimney Sweep is that the firm broke the law. Every state’s Rule 8.4 says right up front that it is a serious ethics breach to “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”
Ah, but violating Hartford City Ordinance 3.1, which regulates placing posters, placards, signs, or advertising devices in public places without written consent, is classified as a civil infraction. Violators face only a $90 fine. In contrast, property damage and vandalism is prosecuted under Connecticut state law as criminal mischief, a criminal misdemeanor carrying potential jail time and heavy fines.
Moreover, if anything this advertising break-through reflected well on the firm’s lawyers’ “fitness,” don’t you agree? They tiptoed through the possible legal and ethical landmines, got lots of free publicity nationwide, sent out safety messages to the public, and how upset could anyone get at sidewalk art?
Ethics Alarms 
Chalk being one thing, I like the strategy of power washing a message into sidewalk grime. I don’t think that should be regulated in any way shape or form. If the city doesn’t like it, it can clean the sidewalks on a more regular schedule.
Here you go!
My first thought was, Ugh.
Then, that maybe it was a city campaign sponsored by T&T. Then when it highlighted broken city owned stuff, I realized it was unlikely.
Then I saw the mayor wanted to fine then, and my reaction was, yay!
The campaign was kind of obnoxious. Every sidewalk ramp had Trantollo and Trantollo’s name written on it. I never actually bothered to read one, once I saw it was an add.
Within a few days, all the chaulk was purposefully washed away. Never saw one of the powerwashed ones, but a slightly grimy sidewalk is not a safety hazard, nor particularly unsightly.
Both clever and unethical.
Wonder if their punishment will be more severe than the multitudes of they-are-not-really-illegal immigrants in this blue state.
Couldn’t help myself.
“However, the stunt violates the Kantian ethics test of considering what the world would be like if everybody did it, or even every law firm.“
Off to a tangent on this post, I am not a fan of this Kantian ethics test. Kant’s ethics test leads to conformism, constricting a person’s individuality and freedom of choice. E.g. parents may use Kant’s test to tell their children that they should marry and have children, because if everybody would stay single mankind would die out.
Society is richer because of creativity and a variety in individual choice. And now back to the law firm’s advertising campaign, technically they broke some rules and laws. They may even get punished for it. As long as the revenues generated by this ad campaign exceeds the penalties due to breaking the law, the advertising campaign may have been worth it for this law firm. I am aware that this is a non-ethical consideration.