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?