Super Lawyers Facts

Super Lawyers Now, Blogs Next?

Attorneys are starting to take note that some of the more extreme restrictions on attorney advertising and marketing are pointless in terms of protecting consumers and excessive in terms of a basic right to free speech. See Kevin O'Keefe's post, referring to a post by Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis.  O'Keefe notes that ethics regulators may not stop at advertising.

em>Lawyers, not wanting to take a chance, seek informal ethics opinions approving the lawyers plans to tell the world about themselves. I am already seeing it with blogs. Lawyers are asking me, 'should we submit our blog to the bar for ethics approval?'

As Norm says, few (I'm not aware of any) decisions seem to be directed toward the blogosphere. But unless lawyers, presumably the defenders of the First Amendment, take a stand we're going to find lawyer blogs regulated on the basis that someone may reach the conclusion the lawyer publishing the blog has some expertise and experience. God forbid. Protect the children."

As we've said many times, it's reasonable to ask that lawyers be truthful and not misleading when marketing themselves. Beyond that, consumers are harmed by too little information about lawyers --  certainly not by too much.

New Lawyer Advertising Restrictions Violate Free Speech, US District Court Says

A ruling by the US District Court, Northern District of New York declared key new provisions of New York's new rules on attorney advertising unconstitutional.  The suit was brought by consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.  According to Public Citizen's press release: 

"In a victory for First Amendment rights, the court permanently enjoined enforcement of most of the challenged rules against attorney advertising, including rules against attention-getting techniques, the use of nicknames and mottos, the use of client testimonials, the portrayal of judges and the use of Internet pop-up ads."

A copy of the Court's ruling is available on Public Citizen's website here, and noted on their blog here.  Public Citizen also has complete information on the case at its Consumer Law & Policy Blog, co-sponsored by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, at  http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/advertising/index.html.

FTC Staff Weighs in on Proposed Restrictions to Attorney Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Consumer Protection and Bureau of Economics submitted instructive comments on New York's Proposed Amendment to Rules Governing Attorney Advertisement. The comments take a strong stand against "overly broad" provisions and restrictions against truthful advertising. The authors say:

"The FTC Staff believes that while deceptive advertising by lawyers should be prohibited, restrictions on advertising and solicitation should be specifically tailored to prevent deceptive claims and should not unnecessarily restrict the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information. As to the proposed amendments, the FTC Staff is concerned that several provisions are overly broad, may restrict truthful advertising, and may adversely affect prices paid and services received by consumers. Moreover, the FTC Staff believes that New York can adequately protect consumers from false and misleading advertising by using less restrictive means such as requiring clear and prominent disclosure of certain information."

Click here to download the FTC Staff report.