A twist for 'Strong Arm': Suit reinstated

Court backs consumer in ad case against Azar firm

John Accola, Rocky Mountain News

Published January 10, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More More Business

Attorneys who advertise themselves as champion litigators but fail to deliver can be sued under Colorado's consumer protection laws.

The state's highest court ruled Monday that citizens have the right to sue attorneys under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act in cases alleging deceptive or false advertising.

"Some attorneys are really out there in the marketplace advertising over the airwaves," Denver attorney Eric Fisher said. "This really, really notches up the liability. What the (Colorado Supreme) Court is really saying is that lawyers are subject to the same rules as any other business."

The 39-page decision, written by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, reinstated a dismissed lawsuit brought by a dissatisfied client against Franklin D. Azar & Associates - one of Denver's most widely advertised personal-injury law firms.

Founder Frank Azar's in-your-face commercials - in which he sometimes refers to himself as the "Strong Arm" and boasts "I can get you more money!" - have been a fixture on late-night TV in Colorado for years. Among the firm's slogans, aimed at car accident victims: "In a wreck, get a check."

But in 2003, plaintiff Richard Crowe, of Colorado Springs, alleged that the law firm did not perform as advertised. Crowe, who incurred brain damage when his car was broadsided by a 17-year-old driver, said he was pressured by his Azar attorney, Marc Tull, to accept a $4,000 settlement that was far less than the full value of his claim.

He sued Tull and the law firm for professional negligence and held that the consumer protection law entitled him to triple damages and attorney fees.

Crowe's lawsuit portrayed the Azar firm as a high-volume practice that relied on quick settlements of cases with minimal effort. Referring to Frank Azar's bold ad claims, Crowe's lawsuit charged that the law firm "knowingly engaged in a deceptive trade practice."

The Colorado Defense Lawyers Association, represented by insurance attorneys, agreed with an El Paso County district judge's dismissal of the consumer protection claims. The trial court reasoned that while the Azar firm's commercials may have lured Crowe to retain the firm, the commercials didn't cause financial injury.

But Denver attorney Beth Krulewitch of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association submitted a legal brief stating that the lower court erred.

"Ultimately, we represent the interests of citizens, not lawyers," Krulewitch said Monday.

Krulewitch said the association didn't weigh who was right or wrong in the dispute between client and lawyer. "Our position was if there is a case where somebody allegedly advertised in a misleading or deceptive way, attorneys shouldn't be carved out as an exception to that body of law," she said.

In the high court's ruling, Mullarkey wrote that "deceptive marketing practices are not the sole domain of the bait-and-switch retailer or purveyor of phony price comparisons."

She also noted that while the 1969 law is "quiet" on the liability of legal services, the Colorado legislature has had "ample opportunity to exclude attorneys."

Fisher said the high court's ruling is consistent with its 2001 opinion that found the consumer protection act was applicable to insurance companies in their marketing pitches to policyholders.

Frank Azar said he won't argue with the high court's opinion. All the same, Crowe's lawsuit is "frivolous on its merits," he said.

"It doesn't matter to me one way or the other," Azar said. "You can sue anybody for anything. It doesn't go to the merits of the case."

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News