An Examination of the Causes, Influences, and Solutions to the Public Perception

Problem of Lawyers

Senior Thesis
Andrea Pearce

In American society, the legal field is one that plays an important role in the lives of
many. Lawyers and others who work in the field provide guidance, defend those on trial, change
public policies, and influence lawmakers (Types of Lawyers 2015). However, it is undeniable
that in the eyes of many Americans, the entire legal field is seen in a negative regard.
Unfortunately, it is the very few corrupt and greedy lawyers that are given the most attention by
the media and it is remembered by the general public as a representation of all attorneys as a
whole.
Many highly publicized trials, including OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Oscar Pistorius,
and the more recent George Zimmerman, all saw surprising not guilty verdicts at the end, and
many place the blame on these defendants talented lawyers for the reason injustices were served
(Thompson, 2013). With cases and outcomes such as these, it is not surprising that the public has
a low tolerance of lawyers. It appears many Americans do not fully understand is that there is
much more to those who study the law than what is shown on television dramas, blockbuster
movies, and in high profile cases shown on the nightly news. There are numerous types of
lawyers that never step foot inside a courtroom, never exploit clients for money, and actually
change lives for the better.
If lawyers want to be seen in a more positive light by the American people, they must
implement changes in how they communicate with the public. Using effective public relations as
well as shaping the way Americans react to negative media attacks can improve their currently
negative image. The legal field is considered one of the least respected fields by a majority of the
public, most likely as a result of the media. However, an effective change in public relations can
reverse the publics ill sentiments if properly installed.

Stereotypes are a major downfall of todays legal field, and are one of the first things
lawyers should work to change. One of the major stereotypes of lawyers today are that all
lawyers work in courtrooms defending vicious murderers, and bribe judges to get their clients off
to collect profits. While litigation attorneys or those who often work in courtrooms as personal
injury, criminal defense, or divorce lawyers are common areas of practice, there are other lawyer
professions that never see a courtroom. There are immigration lawyers who work on their clients
citizenship proceedings. Public interest lawyers who work to encourage changes in
environmental law, or who work to improve the rights of the disabled. Estate lawyers work
solely on creating wills and estate plans for their clients (Types of Lawyers 2015). These types of
lawyers arent hired by murderers or thieves to keep them out of jail, they use their expertise and
understanding of the law to maintain the civil rights and liberties given to all Americans under
the Constitution, or those who desire to be.
While it has been defined what types of lawyers are present in society and what specific
types of law is practiced, it is only a starting point. It is essential to conduct research and find the
answers to the problems burdening many lawyers today. Knowing where negative views of
lawyers originated from, and where the actual profession began is important to know, as it will
provide a basis of the problem and how it has grown. However, also understanding the negativity
surrounding the field and how public relations can provide aid is vital. The feelings experienced
by the public also needs to be defined, which are reflected in the numerous studies conducted
exploring public opinion on the topic.

A Review of Literature
This study of research is not the first time the issue of negative perception of lawyers has
been addressed. To date, there are a multitude of scholars and those in the field themselves who
have examined the difficult matters facing lawyers today. Those who practice and immerse
themselves in the law have often had to consider why they receive backlash from the public, and
have taken it upon themselves to research the causes, in some cases. To address the issue of the
negative perception of lawyers by a majority of the public, researchers have employed a variety
of research methods to produce results to be analyzed. I examined the existing research on this
topic and provided an overall analysis of the scholars work combined with writings of current
lawyers working in the field today.
By exploring the existing literature and testimonies, I hope to gain a better understanding
of the history of the legal field and how it has led to the current public opinions of lawyers today.
From there, we can determine how public relations may or may not effectively aid lawyers in
improving their status.
What is the origin of the legal field, and where did the negative views begin?
Lawyers have been present in societies throughout the world since some believe, 150,000
years ago (Dewey). Historically, lawyers didnt conduct the same type of work they do today,
they often settled disputes over land, or sales of expensive items. The attempted sale of the
famous Egyptian Sphinx in the now deciphered Rosetta Stone contract at one time led the
Egyptian Pharaoh to banish all lawyers from his state and slaughter any known lawyers, since
these first contract lawyers attempted to create the sale (Dewey). During the Ancient Greece
and Ancient Rome eras are when the modern lawyering practices began. Throughout this period,

lawyers were allowed to practice freely and independently (Dewey). However, before the Roman
era, lawyers didnt have specific areas of focus. During this time lawyers began specializing:
sports lawyers counseled gladiators, international lawyers traveled the world forcing other
empires to sign contracts. History continued on, and eventually England colonized America,
where American lawyers negotiated their independence from England (which obviously ended
with a war). Harvard law school was established in 1812 and today sets the standard for legal
education (Dewey). The jobs of modern lawyers have roots dating back to ancient Egypt and the
founding of America. It is an ancient profession that is still alive and well today, although
negative public perception has evolved since the earliest lawyers.
It is clear that lawyers have been present in all types of societies for thousands of years,
and it is important to understand where the first negative feelings of lawyers began. According to
Robert Clifford (2001), an attorney based out of Chicago, these feelings can be traced back as far
as Shakespearean times. Since Shakespeare, indeed as early as the 14th century...those who
shape public opinion have portrayed lawyers as shady characters at best (Clifford 2001). Indeed,
in Shakespeares play Henry IV lies a famous line, regarded as the first ever lawyer joke that
reads The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers (Meehle 2011). The 1400s might not have
been the earliest recorded ill sentiment towards lawyers, but clearly during this era lawyerbashing was common. Clifford provides another hypothesis for why he believes lawyers have
always been viewed negatively and it dates back centuries. In early colonial times, public trials
and executions were popular and loved by everyone who viewed them, usually in the local town
square. From vicious murderers to those suspected of witchcraft, the public loved (and still
loves) to see those who we see as dangerous publicly punished. Lawyers just happen to be in the
middle of it all, defending either the accused or actually accusing. As a result, the public began

associating lawyers with those they wanted so desperately to be punished by hanging or

execution and this gave birth to the modern hate of lawyers (Clifford 2001). Overall, hating
lawyers is obviously not a new concept whatsoever. The hatred is likely as old as the profession
itself, but there are recorded ill sentiments from centuries ago which gives a fairly good idea that
these feelings have been consistent from this era until today.
What types of feelings are experienced by the public; are they largely negative?
One of the most important aspects of understanding the relationship between the public
and the legal field is understanding how consumers really feel about lawyers, and from where
these views originate. In a study completed by the American Bar Association (2002), consumer
research findings yielded some interesting results. Using focus group and telephone survey
methods, the ABA sought to find out how Americans truly felt about lawyers. To begin on a
positive note, respondents claimed that they felt that lawyers are knowledgeable about the law,
hard working, able to navigate clients through difficult situations effectively, and that the
legal field is a respectable one overall. 58% of respondents to this survey who had ever hired a
lawyer in the past, were mostly or very satisfied with their services (Leo 2002). These responses
and data are surprising proof that lawyers are not always 100% viewed in a negative light.
However, when asked about views of different types of lawyers, only real estate and civil rights
lawyers were seen in a neutral or positive light. Criminal defense, personal injury, and divorce
lawyers, among others, were all seen in negative lights for varying reasons. Now, these survey
results yielded a high amount of negative reactions about lawyers as a whole. Complaints by the
respondents can be narrowed down to four major grievances: lawyers are greedy, manipulative,
corrupt, and dont appropriately police themselves. Respondents shared personal experiences
with lawyers and shared specific examples of why they felt certain ways. For example, many

complained that lawyers arent up front about their fees, and overcharge clients often out of
greed. This study conducted by the American Bar Association provides great insight into how the
overall American public feels about lawyers, and where these feelings came from.
Marty Carbonne, a lawyer at a major criminal law firm in upstate New York, provides his
insight as to where negative perceptions originate, and why they should be considered myth. He
believes that the media has a great deal to do with the views of Americans; especially in TV
shows such as Law and Order SVU, Better Call Saul, Boston Legal, and others. Carbonne argues
that the media sensationalizes the jobs of lawyers, and insinuates that the typical day of most
lawyers does not include as much drama as these shows suggest. He says that most of a lawyers
work is done behind closed doors, not by banging fists in front of a judge in a courtroom. He
argues that those who get their legal education from Law and Order may feel that a lawyer is
not advocating enough for their clients if there is no verbal disagreement with the judge in a
courtroom case. Negotiations in many cases are done privately between the lawyer and the
District Attorney, and lawyers actually do everything they can to keep clients out of court.
Carbonne emphasizes that just like all TV dramas, they are created to be just that dramas.
Viewers can enjoy the stories portrayed in their favorite legal show, but should not take the legal
behavior by major characters as typical or the norm (Carbonne). This expert testimony is
valuable, and should be taken seriously as it is someone who works in the field every day and
sees how the media can affect perception.
What are the major causes of the publics sentiments?
As previously introduced, the media has a major impact on the lives of those who
consume it. It is no secret that Americans take in different types of media constantly. Whether

from television, movies, newspapers, magazines, listening to the radio, or advertisements,

Americans are always being fed information from the media. According to a study conducted by
Nielson, the average American today watches more than five hours of television a day, spends
over an hour on the Internet, over an hour on a smartphone or mobile device, and over two hours
listening to the radio (Hinckley 2015). For all ages, weekly consumption ranges from 20-50
hours a week exposed to all media. Clearly, this is a lot of time spent being subject to the
opinions and stereotypes that the media portrays.
Now, it is not intelligent to infer that just because Americans consume a high amount of
media and television especially, that those who are watching believe everything they see.
However, this has proven over and over to be the case. In a study titled Perceptions of lawyers
a transnational study of student views on the image of law and lawyers the effects of media
and other factors on student perception of lawyers were studied in several different countries.
The study was made up of a questionnaire which was given to first year law students in six
countries: Argentina, Germany, England, Scotland, Australia, and the United States. The
questionnaire was slightly amended to make up for cultural differences in each country, but each
survey was largely the same. On the questionnaire, students were asked about their demographic
information, their opinions on the field they were entering, the sources of these opinions, and a
list of television shows and movies. The study yielded responses similar to other studies done on
the same subject. When asked specifically where these students perceptions of lawyers came
from, news sources and other media outlets were among the highest reported responses (Asimow
et al 2005). Of the five countries surveyed, Great Britain and the United States consumed the
most media when compared to the other three. When given a list of popular lawyer TV shows
and movies and asked to confirm which ones each respondent had seen, American students

reported seeing the highest number of lawyer movies while British students reported seeing the
highest number of lawyer television shows (Asimow et al 2005).
Interestingly enough, out of the five countries studied, American and Argentinean
students had the poorest overall views of lawyers in society. This study shows that interestingly
enough, Americans do have a very low regard for the legal field. It also confirms that media
consumption and perception of lawyers is positively correlated. Students may not be the best
representative group for the general public as a whole in each respective country, but their
attitudes are at least a good way to understand the feelings of that particular age demographic.
Steve Greenfield, in his essay: Hero or Villain? Cinematic Lawyers and the Delivery of
Justice examines the role of the specific trial lawyer in popular culture. Greenfield introduces
the concept of a hero-lawyer, or lawyers who are unafraid of any type of case, and will not
back down when given the chance to represent an unpopular client. An example of this type of
lawyer is Atticus Finch in the popular novel and movie To Kill a Mockingbird. In this story, a
black man (Tom Robinson) is put on trial for the rape of a white girl. Atticus Finch is a famous
local lawyer who represents Tom, during an intense time of racial segregation where defending
Tom lowered Atticuss social status. Greenfield explains that types of lawyers similar to Atticus
see themselves as morally superior and feel it is their job to protect the legal system and fight for
morality. However, although Atticus is a beloved classic literature character, his type of
representation speaks to a larger problem. Hero-lawyers in film often fight against prejudices and
are seen as representatives of justice, not the law. But, the public doesnt remember the herolawyer always after viewing these types of movies, Greenfield suggests. He believes that in
movies with hero-lawyers, there are clear obstructions of justice which make the viewer hate
everything to do with the legal system. Justice becomes dependent on the lawyers themselves,

Greenfield writes, which the public and especially Americans dont like (Greenfield 2001). In
short, even if a lawyer is doing the right thing by representing an unpopular client, the public
will hate any type of injustice served to either party and place blame on the lawyers involved.
These lawyers are present in beloved films and novels but are also present in similar real life
situations.
Robert Clifford of Clifford Law Offices operating in Chicago, IL, also provides his
insight as to why the public seems to hate lawyers. His explanation is similar to Marty
Carbonnes, but he points to more than just the media. He argues that popular beliefs are largely
the result of fiction and that media contributes to this fiction. In The Rainmaker, Danny
Devito plays a personal injury lawyer soliciting bandaged and broken clients in the hospital,
taking full advantage of their situation. However, the public takes these types of portrayals a little
too much to heart; as Clifford argues I am sure the glamorized movie version will bear little
resemblance to the personal injury attorneys I know, yet the public will walk away from theaters
convinced the fictionalized account is very real (Clifford 2001). He then shifts his argument to
place the blame on the actual job description of lawyers, and why they are needed. Lawyers,
however, and particularly litigators, he argues, exist exactly because there are controversies,
disagreements, and adverse interests (Clifford 2001). He goes on to say that the public has
always had a fascination in the way major disputes are handled. Since colonial times, where
trials and hangings were performed in the town square, to today, to the highly publicized
execution of Timothy Mcveigh in 2001, America has loved drama and conflict. And, luckily
enough, lawyers are right in the middle of all that. In summary, A lawyers knowledge is
something that may be used against some peoples interests as well as for them. This expert
testimony reaches beyond just blaming the media for lawyers perception problems.

How can public relations be implemented effectively to change the view of the public in a
positive way?
In his article The Impact of Popular Culture on the Perception of Lawyers, Robert
Clifford gives alternative ways for lawyers to fix their public perception problem. To start, it has
already been discussed that the types of cases lawyers take on are often judged by the public and
have a major impact on how lawyers are viewed. Clifford explains that cases like the
McDonalds spilled coffee lawsuit make the public disgusted and angry at the audacity of
some people especially the lawyer who took the case. Thus, Clifford argues that taking cases
that the public can respect is a start. Also, Clifford suggests that lawyers use public relations
tactics such as becoming more involved and active in the community. He explains that he would
like to see more lawyers reach out to the press and public in especially high-profile cases, if they
choose to take them on. He wants lawyers to play a bigger role in educating students and adults
on the legal system process, one that so few understand completely. He would like to see more
writing to newspapers on their opinions of major social and legal issues, creating a better image.
Clifford states that while lawyers might not have control over the media, they do have control
over the picture that is painted of themselves. Thus, using public relations tactics such as more
engagement with the public and informing them of the difficult legal system can potentially lead
to more respectful views.
Mary Flood, a Harvard law graduate and legal media and marketing expert, provides
lawyers with five public relations tips for interacting with the media. First, is dont complain to
the media when you arent willing to talk. Flood reminds lawyers that the media wants all sides
of the story. So, when it reports the side against his/her own, the lawyer shouldnt bash the
reporter unless they want to give accurate information. Second is respond to reporters quickly. If

the lawyer wants a specific quote or piece of information in an article that will help the case,
respond quickly when reporters ask. Third, dont lie, at all. Reporters know when a lawyer is
lying or bending the truth and will not speak to them again if they can avoid it. Fourth, is speak
in plain English and dont use Latin legal terms that no one else understands. Lastly, Flood
suggests to stop using no comment. It makes the lawyer appear to be hiding something, or
passing up an opportunity to say something positive about the case or client. According to Mary
Flood, changing up how lawyers interact with the media is a good public relations tool for
increasing likeability by the public.

An Overview of Research Methodology

The primary purpose for this research is to aid lawyers struggling with a negative
perception problem to use public relations and a more conscious understanding of the public they
serve to reverse negative feelings. To date, there have been multiple studies completed on this
topic. The majority of this research will be translated into an in depth analysis of other scholars
work, as well as professional lawyers themselves.
Materials
The different studies on the perception of lawyers in the U.S. were found in a variety of
locations. The Carthage College Hedberg Library subject guides provided a solid starting point.
Searching for peer-reviewed articles using key words such as negative lawyer perceptions
hatred towards lawyers and types of lawyers, among other similar phrases, led to sources
such as Perceptions of lawyersa transnational study of student views on the image of law and
lawyers by Michael Asimow, Steve Greenfield, Guillermo Jorge, Stefan Machura, Guy Osborn,

Peter Robson, Cassandra Sharp, and Robert Sockloskie. Next, searching Google with phrases
lawyers in the media and lawyers and public relations led to less conventional sources
including Myths about Lawyers in the Media by Marty Carbonne and other testimonials
written by current lawyers. Searching for lawyers and public relations yielded articles written
specifically on the subject by public relations professionals, like Mary Floods Top Five Media
Tips for Lawyers by Mary Flood. Overall, the data for this analysis was found with simple
searches of online sources, using simple key words.
Procedure
After the initial search was conducted, the conclusions of each source were analyzed.
Sources were included in this study based on their relativeness to the proposed questions in the
literature review and how well they related to the main question. First, the actual conclusions of
each piece were determined. Next, any differences in data collected was tracked and grouped
together. For example, The Impact of Popular Culture on the Perception of Lawyers and
Perceptions of lawyersa transnational study of student views on the image of law and
lawyers both held the same results: that the media and their portrayal of lawyers has a major
impact on how media viewers look at real life lawyers negatively. After the research was grouped
together the public relations section of the research was analyzed. Different public relations
professionals have their opinions on how lawyers should act in the public and how to utilize
public relations in general, and these were also grouped together. Once all the sources were read,
concluded, and grouped together, they could be thoroughly analyzed and related to each other.
These steps yielded successful research and insightful answers to the questions regarding the
publics dislike for the legal field and lawyers, and how it can be resolved.

Results and Analysis

The results from an analysis of the literature were consistent with the expected results of
this study. It was found fairly quickly that the research all yielded overall similar results, yet
there were minor variations. Through the examination of studies conducted by law professionals,
opinions pieces of lawyers themselves, articles by public relations experts, and scholarly articles
on the subject, the answers to the questions facing the legal field can be sufficiently answered.

Critical Analysis
As a result of researching the history and background of the lawyering profession, the
publics feelings about lawyers, major sources of the negativity, as well as public relations
possibilities, I will now provide an overall synthesis and analysis of the problems lawyers face
and how they can be solved. This analysis will then be tied in with a famous court case that of
O.J. Simpson, and his team of lawyers.
A breakdown of the findings concluded that the relationship O.J. Simpsons lawyers had
with the media and the public undoubtedly played a role in their perceptions by those who
followed the case. Whether these relations were intentional or a result of existing stereotypes,
O.J.s lawyers were definitely a major target of criticism by media outlets and ordinary citizens.
It was also found that the nature of the trial and defendant played a role in the negative
perception of O.J.s lawyers. This trial was at the center of American news for a lengthy period
of time, with almost all citizens sharing an opinion of O.J.s guilt, which contributed to the
overall hatred as well. The following analysis connects the existing literature and research

findings with the O.J. Simpson lawyers, and provides evidence for what contributed to their
public image.
OJ Simpson was a once famous and beloved running back in the National Football
League, playing for both the Buffalo Bills and San Francisco 49ers in the early through late
1970s. He was a Heisman trophy winner at his alma mater, the University of Southern
California. In 1994, OJ was accused, charged, and put on trial for the murder of his wife Nicole
Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman in 1994. The trial lasted over a year, and ended in
October of 1995 with perhaps the most unexpected verdict in history: not guilty. Near the center
of the media frenzy throughout the trial were O.J.s dream team of lawyers: Johnnie Cochran
Jr., Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, and Alan Dershowitz (Bugliosi 1996). The
public was convinced throughout this highly publicized trial that OJ was guilty and would spend
the rest of his life in jail. The jurors were accused of having a biased opinion towards OJ because
of his fame. The lawyers were accused of using unethical practices to bias the jury (Bugliosi
1996). Overall, the O.J. Simpson case is one that a majority of the United States most likely has
heard of or knows something about. It changed the way we felt about celebrities and the justice
system, as well as the shady practices of lawyers.
Robert Cliffords hypothesis of why hatred towards lawyers began during these early
times still rings true today. As stated by Clifford, during colonial times, trials and executions
were done publicly in the town square or busy area. Citizens enjoyed attending public hangings
of the very murderers they hated so much. Right at the middle of the attention centered around a
negative subject happened to be lawyers, and this is where the negativity likely began. This
hypothesis can be translated into more modern times and seen as true. For example, in the O.J.
Simpson case is seen as one of the most publicized in recent history (Thompson, 2013). America

wanted to see this celebrity murderer put behind bars for the crime everyone was so convinced
he was guilty of. However, when the jurys verdict came back as not guilty, the public was
outraged. They turned to OJs talented group of lawyers, who were nicknamed OJs dream
team, and directed much of their anger towards them. This is Cliffords theory at work in a real
life and memorable situation. O.J. Simpsons trial festered all types of negative feelings towards
him as a defendant. However, when the general public didnt approve of the verdict, the lawyers
received much of the backlash. Cliffords hypothesis about lawyers positions, being at the center
of controversial cases or defending unpopular defendants, puts them at a disadvantage when it
comes to acceptance of the public. As citizens, we like to see justice; but when it isnt served in
our opinion, it must be because of a shady lawyers practices or techniques to get their client off.
Robert Cliffords overall idea rings true especially in O.J. Simpsons case. To counter this
argument, one could say that the process of the criminal justice system is at fault for the publics
opinion. It is a constitutional right for all Americans to have access to defense when on trial. The
decision in O.J.s trial was made by a jury, and not the lawyers involved in the case. The public
should be aware of the criminal justice process and that it does not always lead to a just
outcome that is seemingly expected. While different opinions of O.J. Simpson and his lawyers
were quickly formed, it cannot be forgotten that he did indeed receive a fair and procedural trial.
Applying the findings of a consumer research survey can relate to the O.J. Simpson case
as well (Leo, 2002). The survey found that among the mentioned types of lawyers, criminal
defense lawyers rank towards the lowest end of being considered negatively, along with personal
injury and divorce lawyers. Criminal defense lawyers typically work on cases similar to O.J.s,
but not all are as high profile. The public could have already considered O.J.s dream team in low
regard at the beginning of the trial, well before any deliberations actually began. In the same

study, respondents gave multiple reasons why they specifically thought of these lawyers in such
low regard. Of the responses received, lawyers being greedy and manipulative were two of
the most popular answers. It is estimated that the fees charged by his team were over $5 million
per lawyer, and there were at least five major lawyers in the case, not counting the numerous
legal assistants (Bugliosi 1996). The legal team was often called the best lawyers money can
buy in media outlets, as they often took high profile cases, sometimes involving celebrities.
During the actual trial, the team of lawyers led by Johnnie Cochran Jr., famously pulled
the race card as a reason for why O.J. was put on trial for the crimes. They argued that because
O.J. was African American, he was wrongly charged of the crime because of his race (Bugliosi
1996). This was considered a way to manipulate the jury at the time and turn their opinions of
O.J. in a clear and innocent direction. During the year that the Simpson trial was underway, the
five lawyers were discussed negatively in the media almost as much as O.J. himself was. This
could be a result of the negative preconceived notion the public had about criminal defense
attorneys already. After the trial was completed, it could easily be argued that the lawyers were
bashed in the media because of their greedy and manipulative tactics and reputation. Some could
argue that O.J. was acquitted of the crimes because his team of lawyers was very talented. This
might have been the case. However, their high fees, manipulative courtroom tactics, and the
publics already negative views of their job descriptions without a doubt played a larger role in
their negative image than their actual talent.
It is interesting, then, to note Marty Carbones argument for why the public hates lawyers
so much. His thesis is that the media is also to blame, because of TV shows such as Law and
Order, Boston Legal, and others. He believes that these shows sensationalize the jobs of
lawyers, and do not accurately reflect the daily lives of lawyers (Carbone 2011). While I can

agree that these TV shows sensationalize and glamorize the jobs of lawyers as dramatic and
unpredictable, I dont find this to be the case in connection with the O.J. Simpson trial. These TV
shows do not always show a just verdict as the result of a case- in Law and Order: SVU, rapists
are often let off and serve no jail time. While these cases on TV are difficult to agree with, I dont
believe they had any effect on how the public viewed the Simpson lawyers. The public should
have understood, as a result of these TV shows, that at times an unjust verdict is delivered, even
with ethical lawyers at the defense.
When discussing the O.J. Simpson case, the media has to be discussed and analyzed, as it
played such an important role in the entire trial. A major study on this subject can interestingly
enough be tied to the O.J. Simpson case and lawyers and provide insight as to the actual media
frenzy around the case (Asimow et al., 2005). The study found that the media was a major source
of negative sentiments towards lawyers, because of how they are portrayed on news outlets, TV
shows, and other forms of media and the ability for these media outlets to shape opinion. In the
study, the amounts of media consumed by the respondents from the five sample countries were
measured as well. The United States, not surprisingly, ranked the highest in media consumption
when compared with England, Scotland, Argentina, and Germany. Combining these two data
outcomes yields results that can be directly tied to the Simpson trial. Since the United States
consumes a large amount of media, and media is one of the biggest influences on the opinions of
the public, it is not surprising that the American public hated the dream team. The news at the
time of the trial was completely centered around O.J., his lawyers, and the crime. Images of
crowds outside the courtroom holding signs and chanting were shown often, as well as the
famous image of O.J.s lawyers whispering to each other while in court (Bugliosi 1996). These
images might not have changed the minds of the public when it came to the subject of Simpsons

innocence, but they may have fueled the fire directed towards Simpsons lawyers. It can be said,
and rightly so, that the American public does not have to believe everything it sees on the news
or on a TV show. This is true, but it is simply not the case. The data to support the overwhelming
amounts of people who believe what they see in the media is too strong. In the study by Leo, the
media was stated as one of the top influences on the opinion of lawyers. It would be unfair to say
that it is the publics fault for listening to the media and allowing them to be influenced so
heavily but what is said on the news or in TV shows.
Robert Cliffords expert testimony on his beliefs for the widespread hatred towards
lawyers can be connected to the Simpson lawyers. He says the hatred is a result of the job
descriptions of lawyers: that they are needed when there has been a crime or wrongdoing. This
was likely the case for the dream team. The public was convinced O.J. was guilty from the
beginning, as the evidence strongly pointed in that direction. O.J. went from a popular sports
icon to one of the most hated men in American literally overnight. To speak to Cliffords
argument: someone had to defend O.J., and these lawyers took the chance. Lawyers for
murderers on trial are always seen with their client, who in the case of O.J. Simpson, was very
unpopular. This, in turn, makes the lawyers very unpopular, since they are at the center of the
unpopular trial. One could argue that lawyers are well aware of their job description and what
defending a suspected criminal entails, so it is their own fault that they are widely hated. This
might be true, as most lawyers know what they are signing up for when they defend an
unpopular client. However, to use the common phrase, they are just doing their job. Not every
client is going to be a popular one, and there has to be defense for even the lowest criminals. It is
the lawyers choice to defend them, but in comparison, a doctor who saves a criminals life
through open heart surgery is not considered in the same regard.

In Robert Cliffords same article, he offers advice on how to fix lawyers public
perception problem. He advises that lawyers take cases that the public can respect, as well as
involve themselves in the community through public relations outreaches to increase their
likeability. These are practical pieces of advice that could definitely work for some lawyers who
are in desperate need of a change in their image. However, in the case of the dream team, these
dont ring as true or necessary. Again, these lawyers took O.J.s case because someone had to, as
argued earlier. It also helped that some of the lawyers, including Robert Kardashian, were
personal friends of Simpsons. As far as using public relations tactics, the lawyers images could
definitely improve but many of them have continued to take on high profile cases after
Simpsons trial wrapped up. To put it simply, these lawyers have far too much money and wealth
to care about improving their image. For example, Johnnie Cochran Jr. went on to represent
Michael Jackson in his sexual abuse charges (Bugliosi). If the dream team lawyers careers had
taken a turn for the worse after Simpson, the public relations tactics might have been quite useful
for them to repair their image. However, it is clear that they arent in any need for an image
rebranding, as they are still called by the rich and famous for defense.
Lastly, Mary Floods tips for improving lawyers media relations as a subset of public
relations could have definitely helped Simpsons lawyers during the time of the trial. One of
Floods most important tips for lawyers is to not lie, at all. One of O.J.s lawyers, Weitzman, lied
to the press about what he had told his client he could and could not do. Simpson began to
answer press questions days earlier, but after media backlash, Weitzman came out and said that
he had advised Simpson against speaking to the press. This cannot be proven, but if Weitzman
did lie to the press, it definitely did not help his image in any way. While not every tip

suggested by Mary Flood can be directly linked back to this specific court case, her suggestions
could have definitely helped the lawyers publicly.
Conclusion
Throughout the process of researching, examining, and analyzing the topic of lawyers
view by the public, I have established a set of questions related to the topic that can better be
answered. These questions include: What is the origin of the legal field, and where did the
negative views begin? What types of feelings are experienced by the public? Are they largely
negative? What are the major causes of the publics sentiments? How can public relations be
implemented effectively to change the view of the public in a positive way? Answering the four
questions and applying them to the O.J. Simpson murder trial provided both surprising and
expected results.
There are a growing number of lawyers practicing in the United States today, some with
better ethical practices and standards than others. For the lawyers who genuinely want to do
positive things for their community and for their clients, they begin their career with a
disadvantage as far as how they are regarded by the public. Depending on their chosen field of
the law, they might already be hated by some just because of their job title. Some lawyers are at
fault for their own negative image. These lawyers often choose cases to take that will be
unpopular with the public no matter what, yet do it anyway. Examples of these cases include O.J.
Simpson, Oscar Pistorius, and Casey Anthony, among others. Lawyers who take these cases are
fulfilling their job duty of representing a client to their best ability, yet when the public already
have a preconceived notion of the guilt of the defendant, the lawyer will undoubtedly be looked
at in the same light as the criminal. However, not all negative feelings towards lawyers are

deserved, as is to be expected. The medias portrayal of lawyers in popular crime TV shows

such as Law and Order, or Criminal Minds, does not help in any way. These shows include
lawyers from time to time, who are greedy and manipulative of their clients. They are seen as
slimy on TV, so it is no surprise that Americans will then assume some real life lawyers are
slimy as well. The media, unfortunately, is highly unlikely to ever change their characters on TV
shows just because it is causing negative stereotypes in real life. Lawyers or those involved in
the legal field need to comprehend that there will already be negative opinions towards their
chosen career field before any interactions with clients even begins. As seen in the O.J. Simpson
case, the dream team was right beside the man America believed was a vicious murderer,
making them just as awful as O.J. himself before the trial even began. Understanding where
opinions of the public come from is vital for lawyers to understand, if they ever want to make an
effective change.
A better public relations understanding, then, seems to be one of the best tools for
lawyers to use to start gradually changing the minds of Americans. Starting with media relations
will give lawyers the desired results if used correctly. If practicing as a trial or criminal lawyer,
cases will obviously be publicized from time to time, depending on the individual clients. The
public loves to know the details of the headline trials, and the media wants to know even more.
For this reason, lawyers must create good relationships with media outlets and reporters. Coming
across as a respectful yet intelligence attorney in press interviews, instead of lying or using the
always famous no comment technique, will impress reporters who can spin the story in that
lawyers favor. This will not always change the minds of the citizens watching the interviews or
following the story, but it can be a reputation booster if used correctly. Also, lawyers need to
consistently stay involved with their communities and especially take on a number of pro

bono, or free of charge, clients per year. For example, representing an immigrant mother with
young children at risk of being deported for free may earn the lawyer respect and dignity in the
publics eyes (depending on their immigration views, of course). Simply, improving public
relations with the local community and emphasizing positive relations with the media has the
potential to change negative views. It will not happen overnight, or for all lawyers, but it is a
starting point that could have a large impact on the legal field.
At some point or another, most Americans will need to hire a lawyer at a time in their
lives. Lawyers have an extremely difficult job that can involve trying to defend the most hated
man in the world at the time. Since the public is unlikely to research lawyers and their positive
contributions to society, it is up to lawyers themselves to try and change their reputations. The
public viewing lawyers in a more positive light has its advantages. People might be more eager
to hire a lawyer if they need services, instead of avoiding them because theyre greedy or
shady. A great personal experience with a lawyer can lead to recommendations, more clients,
and an influence on the community. When an ordinary citizen receives a law degree, they will
already be flooded by negative denotations when people are aware of their area of expertise. At
that very moment, however, is when lawyers should begin working to reverse the negative
stereotypes so many hold for their own benefit, and out of respect for the field.

References

Asimow, M., Greenfield, S., Jorge, G., Machura, S., Osborn, G., Robson, P., & ... Sockloskie, R.
(2005). Perceptions of lawyersa transnational study of student views on the image of
law and lawyers. International Journal Of The Legal Profession, 12(3), 407-436.
doi:10.1080=09695950500420358
Berman, J. J. (1976). Parolees' Perception Of The Justice System Black-White Differences.
Criminology, 13(4), 507-520.
Bugliosi, V. (1996). Outrage: Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder.
Retrieved April 8, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/style/longterm/books/chap1/outrage.htm
Carbone, M. (2011, August 9). Myths about Lawyers in the Media | Carbone & Carbone LLP.
Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.carbonelawyer.com/2011/mythsabout- lawyers-in-the-media/
Clifford, R. (2001). The Impact of Popular Culture on the Perception of Lawyers. Retrieved
February 25, 2015, from http://cliffordlaw.com/news/firm-news/the-impact-of-popularculture-on-theqperception-of-lawyers/
Dewey, H. (n.d.). A Short History Of Lawyers. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun04.htm
Flood, M. (n.d.). White Papers. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from
http://www.androvett.com/clientuploads/advertising-marketing-white-papers/mary-floodtop-five-tips-for-lawyers-and-attorneys.htm

Greenfield, S. (2001). Hero or Villain? Cinematic Lawyers and the Delivery of Justice. Journal
Of Law & Society, 28(1).
Hinckley, D. (2015, March 5). Average American watches 5 hours of TV per day. Retrieved
March 18, 2015, from http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/average-american-watches5-hours-tv-day-article-1.1711954
Leo, S. (2002, April 1). Public Perceptions of Lawyers Consumer Research Findings. Retrieved
February 25, 2015, from
http://www.cliffordlaw.com/abaillinoisstatedelegate/publicperceptions1.pdf
Meehle, S. (2011, December 1). Why People Hate Lawyers: Getting Beyond the Stereotypes.
Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://solopracticeuniversity.com/2011/12/01/whypeople-hate-lawyers-getting-beyond-the-stereotypes/
Thompson, A. (2013). The All-Time Most Surprising Acquittals. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-all-time-most-surprising-acquittals/alby-

thompson?

format=SLIDESHOW&page=11
Types of Lawyers. (2015). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.lawyeredu.org/lawcareers.html