We’ve seen busses cloaked in ads, and we’ve seen big big Times Square building ads, but who knew there was a name for this style of billboarding?  Who knew there would be a legal malpractice angle to it?  We did not, until today. From Law.Com:

"Welcome to the latest round in what might be called the Battle over the Blanketing of Los Angeles.
Municipal authorities have in recent years clashed with a group of sign companies and property owners who defied a local ban on so-called supergraphics—the once-omnipresent multistory advertisement draped along the sides of some of the city’s biggest buildings.
Many of the offending signs began to fall last year after the city scored a decisive victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed a federal district court decision striking down the supergraphics ban on First Amendment grounds.
Now, one of the companies that led the supergraphics fight has filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which represented the company during the litigation battle.
In the suit [PDF], filed Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, World Wide Rush and owner Barry Rush claim that Akin Gump committed professional negligence by, among other things, advising the company to put up as many of the controversial signs as possible after the lower court ruling struck down the ban.
As a result of following this advice, the complaint states, World Wide Rush and Barry Rush, personally, were targeted in criminal and civil suits brought by the state of California and the city of Los Angeles.
The complaint further alleges that Akin Gump is responsible for more than 30 other parties connected to World Wide Rush—including contractors and property owners—being targeted in similar suits as part of a campaign that was something of a cause célèbre for current Los Angeles city attorney Carmen Trutanich. (In February 2010, for example, a Hollywood property owner who allowed a supergraphic to be put on his eight-story building was jailed.)
World Wide Rush claims to have racked up more than $1 million in legal fees defending itself and some of its codefendants against the actions initiated by government officials. The complaint also claims that Akin Gump’s advice led to "the demise of WWR."
Citing the firm’s policy of not discussing pending litigation, Akin Gump spokeswoman Kathryn Holmes Johnson declined to comment on the suit. World Wide Rush and Barry Rush are being represented in the suit by Los Angeles–based firm Webb & Beecher, which also declined to comment.
The events leading up to the suit began April 2008. It was then, the complaint states, that World Wide Rush retained Akin Gump at rates of up to $1,050 an hour, in connection with "legal action on behalf of [the company] against the City of Los Angeles."
At that point, World Wide Rush was already embroiled in litigation with the city, having filed a lawsuit challenging the supergraphics ban in January 2007. (The lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of the company by Newport Beach, California–based Paul Fisher, who was later suspended and ultimately disbarred in May 2010 after pleading guilty to several felonies, including having sex with a minor.)
In its suit against Akin Gump, World Wide Rush alleges that the firm’s lawyers "held themselves out…as specializing in advising and directing clients such as [World Wide Rush] with regards to laws, ordinances, zoning, and other regulations of the City of Los Angeles and well-suited to advise [World Wide Rush] as to actions it should take with regard to its supergraphics and signage business in Los Angeles and also with regard to the litigation and scrutiny from the City of Los Angeles."