Posts Tagged LinkedIn
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
Recent Comments