Archive for category Speech Restrictions by Bars
Louisiana’s Regulation of Internet Speech By Attorneys Declared Unconstitutional
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in LA Lawyer Ad Rules, Press Release, Speech Restrictions by Bars, Wolfe v LADB on August 4th, 2009
New Orleans, Louisiana (PRWEB) August 4, 2009 – On Monday, federal Judge Martin Feldman declared unconstitutional Louisiana’s new regulations of attorney advertising on the Internet.
Scott Wolfe Jr. and Wolfe Law Group, who practice construction law in New Orleans, Louisiana, challenged the new lawyer advertising regulations as they applied to the Internet. Wolfe argued the regulations failed to consider the differences between television and Internet advertising, and regulated Internet ads without a need.
“Louisiana didn’t have a reason to regulate Internet ads, and they didn’t understand how attorneys actually use the Internet to advertise,” Wolfe said. “As a result, the rules were incompatible with the realities of Internet advertising.”
The United States Louisiana Eastern District Court agreed, stating in its 39-page opinion that “the Internet presents unique issues related to advertising, which the State simply failed to consider in formulating this Rule.”
“This is a very important ruling,” Wolfe adds. “The court not only noted that states must have a reason to regulate Internet speech, but it also recognized that the Internet media is different from broadcast media, and is entitled to unique protection.”
Certain other components of the new Louisiana lawyer advertising regulations were upheld, including restrictions on ads that promise results, portray a judge or jury or contain a celebrity endorsement.
While these regulations were upheld, the court noted that the “same Rules as those developed for television, radio and print ads” could not be simply applied to Internet advertising. Judge Feldman based this on a finding that “Internet advertising differs significantly from advertising in traditional media.”
Wolfe, who advertises exclusively online, argued that if the rules took effect an attorney’s participation in legal blogs and social networking sites would be unreasonably restricted. Further, Wolfe argued that Google ad campaigns could costs thousands in administrative evaluation fees.
Wolfe’s lawsuit was filed in the United States Eastern District Court of Louisiana, docket number 08-4994. Read a copy of Judge Feldman’s order at JDSupra. The plaintiffs were represented by Ernest Svenson of the Svenson Law Firm, and pro-se by Wolfe Law Group.
For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release, contact Jessica Reiser or visit Wolfe Law Group’s online media center: http://media.wolfelaw.com.
About Wolfe Law Group
Wolfe Law Group is a construction law practice with offices in Seattle, Washington and New Orleans, Louisiana. The firm publishes a blog on Louisiana and Washington construction law titled the Construction Law Montior, and prides itself on thinking different in the legal profession.
Contact
Jessica Hunter, director of public relations
504-894-9653
http://www.wolfelaw.com
Commercial Speech Doctrine, Constitutional Law, JDSupra, Judge Feldman, Pleadings, Rule 7.6(d), Scott Wolfe Jr, Social Networking, Wolfe Law Group
My Challenge to Florida Justice J. Pariente
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in Speech Restrictions by Bars on July 2nd, 2009
If you’re interested in the regulation of attorney speech online, you know about the fight in Florida between free speech advocates and attorney regulators.
On February 27, 2009, something quite humorous came out of the Supreme Court of Florida. It reminded me to Senator Ted Steven’s infamous “Series of Tubes” comments, except that the comments went largely unnoticed and was not ridiculed (Stephen Colbert – please take a look at what is going on in the South with attorneys!).
So the Florida Bar has gone back and forth about Internet “advertisement” by attorneys. Originally, a task force recommended that it not be regulated, and then a second task force recommended regulation.
The Florida Bar regulated (and Louisiana copied), and then immediately set up a “Special Committee on Website Advertising Rules” to examine how the rules can be changed to make more sense.
Rules were recommend to FL, and in February 2009, the Florida Supreme Court refused to adopt the proposed amendments because it saw a number of flaws with the rules.
In steps Justice Barbara J. Pariente to offer her concurring opinion, and explain how she feels the Florida Bar should regulate the “vast flow of information through the Internet.”
Here is part of her opinion:
The Court, through its rejection of the Florida Bar’s proposed rule, does not believe that the rule provides sufficient protection for the public and suggests ways in which a rule could be fashioned to more fully vindicate the necessity for regulation of attorney advertising. Instead, the Court has set forth alternatives that could be acceptable, beginning with requiring that any individual accessing material beyond the homepage must complete at least two steps (or two clicks of the mouse) until information appears that would be deemed the equivalent of “information upon request.”
…
I agree that this is a reasonable compromise and one that makes sense…
Two clicks of the mouse?
Of course, search engines will search for website content despite their layer within a website, and if a web user is searching for information on a page ten pages deep to a website, a search engine will bring them directly there (without “two clicks of the mouse”).
The reasoning also ignores the fact that much of lawyer web content is on pages that is not owned or largely controlled by lawyers. Sites like Avvo.com, web blog services, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.
The Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to regulate false or misleading advertising is not necessarily offensive, but a problem arises when they attempt to regulate the world’s most complicated medium without an elementary understanding of it.
Even if they had the resources to commit millions and millions to understanding the Internet, they would encounter problems because of the medium’s nature. See China.
My challenge to Florida Justice J. Pariente: Get a better understanding of the Net, how the medium is self-regulating, and how information online only gets seen when it’s relevant and true. Understand how it can benefit the bar, before having a knee-jerk reaction and trying to suffocate it.
Do Bar Assocations Want The Public to Shut Up?
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in Speech Restrictions by Bars, Wolfe v LADB on March 24th, 2009
Doug Cornelius operates a blog at compliancebuilding.com that “is about compliance and business ethics.” He raises a question in a blog post today about LinkedIn’s “recommendation feature” as it relates to attorneys using the service, Doug specifically discusses whether the recommendation violates lawyer advertising regulations.
The justification behind this question is simply this: Your LinkedIn profile likely states that you offer certain services, and therefore, would be considered an “advertisement” by most states’ ethics rules.
The query should not stop with the LinkedIn service. Similar social networks and internet websites will raise the same questions. For example, Facebook wall-posts, Avvo.com’s peer and client “endorsements,” and even GoogleMaps’ ratings.
Some of these services allow you to control and edit recommendations (such as LinkedIn), but there are less controls with others (such as Google Maps).
A component of Wolfe Law Group’s lawsuit against the new Louisiana lawyer regulations speaks to exactly this problem with how the old advertising rules relate to modern day internet communicating and networking.
After reading through Mr. Cornelius’ blog post this morning, I submitted the following comment to his post:
Good post, Doug – and I think you are exactly right with your analysis. Recommendations on LinkedIn, however, is really just the tip of the iceberg. What about wall postings that “recommend” a service on a company’s facebook page? How about client and peer endorsements on Avvo.com? What about “ratings” on GoogleMaps.
The fact is, those of us who are regulated by bar associations and other organizations are going to have a very difficult time turning all of this free speech off. In fact, in many instances, our only option would be to not use the service.
This issue is front and center in our lawsuit against the Louisiana State Bar Association (Scott Wolfe Jr. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, et al., USDC ED 08-4994). You can keep up with this suit at http://www.protectspeech.com.
Of course, advertisements by attorneys will still be regulated online. The old rules just don’t fit any longer.
The New Louisiana Regulations
The proposed advertising rules from Louisiana would certainly speak to “recommendations” made on LinkedIn. Proposed Rule 7.2(c)(D) states:
(1) A laywer shall not make or permit to be made a false, misleading or deceptive communication about the lawyer, the lawyer’s services, or the law firm’s services. A communication violates this Rule if it: (d) contains a reference or testimonial to pass successes or results obtained…”
The communication of a “testimonial” through electronic mediums (such as the Internet) is regulated by Rule 7.6(d), which provides that those communications are subject to the requirements of Rule 7.2. This would even require the attorney to submit the “recommendation” to the bar association, with a $150.00 fee, for the bar’s review of its contents.
What do you think?
In essence, the bar association is making attorneys responsible for what other people are saying about them and their work.
While the regulation over “testimonials” make a bit of sense (not constitutionally, but at least sense)with respect to comments used in television or print advertisements…the acquisition of those testimonials are a completely different experience from the acquisition of a ‘recommendation’ on LinkedIn, or a favorable endorsement from a peer or client on Avvo.com.
Should attorneys and other regulated professionals be in charge of telling others to shut up online?
Doug Cornelius, Facebook, Google Maps, JDSupra, LinkedIn, Louisiana Supreme Court, Social network, Testimonials, Wolfe Law Group
Attorney Sanctioned for Web-Post. Ethic or Free Speech Violation?
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in Speech Restrictions by Bars on January 3rd, 2009
In New Y0rk, an attorney was suspended for five years for committing a number of ethical violations. While there is no reason to defend the attorney’s misrepresentations or his trust account problems – what many consider troubling about the NY suspension is that the attorney was seemingly sanctioned for things he said about a judge on a web post.
A post on the Legal Profession Blog provides some revealing excerpts of the attorney’s web post. Further, it also has this quote from the sanctioning judge, concerning the web post:
Irrespective of the respondent’s sincerity in his beliefs, his overzealous behavior which took the form of disparaging remarks on the court, false accusations about Judge Amodeo disseminated in a public forum as part of a campaign to pressure the court into changing its rulings, and noncompliance with multiple court orders, truly constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
While the attorney’s non-speech behavior may have qualified him for sanctions, its unfortunate that the NY Court even contemplates this web post criticizing a judge in determining whether to suspend a person from the practice of law.
Are courts and bar associations using ethical violations to control attorney speech?
Recent Comments