State of Hawaii Finds in Favor of Total Attorneys in Zelotes Request for Investigation

CHICAGO--(Business Wire)--
Total Attorneys, Inc., a managed-services provider that helps small law firms
and solo practitioners, announced today its first victory in defending its
Internet advertising model against allegations made by Zenas Zelotes, a
bankruptcy lawyer in Norwich, Connecticut. Alleging that improper referrals are
being made through Internet sites managed by Total Attorneys, Zelotes filed
hundreds of ethics complaints against its president, Kevin Chern, and attorneys
who use the service. The first to rule on the complaint, Hawaii`s Office of
Disciplinary Counsel completed a full inquiry and determined that there is no
basis upon which to take any action in the case. Hawaii also stated in its
letter that the complaint raised serious First Amendment free commercial speech
and other legal issues.

"The ruling in Hawaii affirms our belief that the advertising model used by
Total Attorneys is within the bounds of ethical and professional conduct," said
Chern. "In Connecticut, as in most states, the Rules of Professional Conduct do
not expressly address modern technology. That said, the Hawaii finding
demonstrates that reasonable attorney regulators can certainly apply antiquated
Rules to contemporary technology in a way that fulfills their mission to protect
consumers and that retains the spirit of those Rules."

Further undermining the Zelotes allegations, the Virginia State Bar`s Standing
Committee on Legal Ethics has officially withdrawn the draft ethics opinion on
attorney Internet advertising upon which Zelotes has relied heavily. By widely
distributing Draft Legal Ethics Opinion 1851 to attorney regulators across the
country in support of his allegations, Mr. Zelotes made the opinion the
centerpiece of his campaign despite the fact it had never been adopted. In
response to the Committee`s invitation for public comment, Chern and his legal
team, along with other independent third parties, submitted comments drawing the
Committee`s attention to the First Amendment and other constitutional
implications of regulating Internet advertising. "By the withdrawal of the
Virginia opinion, it is clear that the issue of Internet advertising is not
settled," said Chern. "We applaud the efforts of bar regulators to address these
issues and we appreciate that the task of updating the ethics rules to catch up
with today`s technology is no small feat."

At least one federal court has recently recognized the unique nature of Internet
attorney advertising. In its August 3, 2009 order in Public Citizen, Inc., et
al. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, et al., no. 08-4451, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana stated that "This Court is
persuaded that Internet advertising differs significantly from advertising in
traditional media." The Court held that the Louisiana rule which required
attorneys to file copies of their advertising with the bar regulators was
unconstitutional as applied to Internet advertising due to the unique
considerations inherent in Internet advertising. According to Chern, "this is
the first time a federal court has recognized that the rules which were written
for traditional forms of advertising cannot be automatically or even
constitutionally applied to advertising on the Internet. Consumers need and
deserve access to affordable legal services and group attorney advertising
models such as ours meet that need."

Bar regulators across the country continue to examine the veracity of Mr.
Zelotes` claims. His complaint, filed with disciplinary authorities in 47
states, targets not only the Total Attorneys online group advertising model, but
all lawyers who participate in two of its sites. The Web sites provide consumers
with information regarding bankruptcy and offer free consultations with
attorneys.

Lawyers who use Total Attorneys` services pay the same fee every time a contact
is generated, regardless of whether that consumer retains the lawyer, and in the
absence of any recommendation by Total Attorneys of the attorney. The
Complainant argues that this practice amounts to paying for a referral and
should be considered unethical by state disciplinary bodies. Total Attorneys
argues that their programs are akin to Google AdWords and other
performance-based pricing models ubiquitous on the Internet.

Launched in 2002, Total Attorneys offers a suite of web sites that provide
extensive information in various areas of consumer law and assist consumers in
making contact with an attorney in the appropriate area if they request an
attorney consultation. A consumer may peruse the free legal information
available on the site and, if interested, can request to be connected with an
attorney who subscribes to the service, based on the consumer`s geographical
location. There is one lawyer per zip code, so no referral is involved.

About Total Attorneys

Total Attorneys ( www.totalattorneys.com ) is a managed service provider that
helps small law firms and solo practitioners improve operations, save money and
grow their businesses. Through the company`s Software-as-a-Service platform, it
offers a broad range of evolving services tailored to the needs of small law
firms, including legal process outsourcing, search engine marketing, a
professional call center, CRM solutions and answering services. Founded in 2002,
Total Attorneys has seen revenue grow more than 9,000 percent over the past five
reporting years, and the company now has more than 1,100 law firm customers
across the United States. This explosive growth led to its being ranked second
on the 2009 Crain`s Chicago Fast Fifty list and being listed 219th on the 2009
Inc. 500 list of fastest-growing private companies in the U.S.

Total Attorneys, Inc.
Pam Gracyalny
312-753-6920
pam@totalattorneys.com

Copyright Business Wire 2009