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.
Recent Comments