I had the same reaction, Sue. There might be some extra sensitivity towards the firefighter concerned, but they make it sound as though that's the main issue.
Why say 'I was there' at all? Wasn't the event itself horrendous enough to suggest that this was a bad move - no matter who the model was?
_______________________________
ETA: Oops - my comment under SJ's above looks glib when put into context with his post. Sorry - I posted that before I'd read his message.
If the issue is that they made this model/actor out to be something he wasn't then I say boo hoo to him. They had a disclaimer on the ad and he signed a release and in fact was a model at the time the photo was taken. It goes with the territory. If, on the other hand, the issue is the law firm and ad agency being tasteless by trying to exploit the tragic events of September 11, 2001 I have to wonder: is anyone really so naive as to think people didn't get rich over that event? Every photographer who captured and then sold images that day and the days that followed, to a news agency or elsewhere, profited from the event. There have been several movies made, and I can tell you, actors, directors, film crews and distributors DON'T work for free. They are all tasteless bast**ds I guess. Come on, even CNN, Fox and every other news broadcaster sold millions in ads while covering that event. Newspapers sold millions of copies during that time as well. In fact, tasteless as it may seem, they only stopped covering the story when it was no longer profitable to do so.
In other words, this law firm is only doing what so many others have already done, taking a tragic, iconic event and turning it into business.