Posts Tagged Rule 7.6(d)
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
Louisiana Legislators on Twitter Need Beware of New Attorney Regulations
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in LA Lawyer Ad Rules on July 13th, 2009
According to Louisiana’s WWL news, social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook are starting to take off in the Louisiana legislature.
While probably good for the politicians and their constituents, those legislatures who are licensed attorneys may need to be concerned about the impending advertising regulations in Louisiana.
Rule 7.6(d) will require that all communications by an attorney, concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services, be subject to the advertising rules. After a constitutional challenge to the provision, the Louisiana legislature added language to 7.6(d) also requiring that the communication be made “when a significant motive” is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain.
When analyzing a similar rule in New York, the A.C.L.U. warned as follows:
Even such fundamental examples of political speech as, for example, a lawyer’s letter to the editor of the New York Times criticizing Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (a lawyer), or a lawyer candidate’s statement in a televised debate of his qualifications for office would be covered by the plain language of the proposed rules. These forms of communication are made “by…a laywer…about a lawyer” and thus fall within the rules’ explicit scope.
Granted, the June 4, 2009 amended to Rule 7.6(d) qualifies that only communications where the speaker has a “significant motive” of pecuniary gain apply…but, what does that actually mean?
In the seminal Central Hudson case, Justice Stevens warned about linking financial motivation with the constitutional protection of speech, stating that “even Shakespeare may have been motivated by the prospect of pecuniary gain.”
Some may argue that the application of Rule 7.6 to legislators using Twitter is far-fetched, but is it really? Could there not be a bar complaint made against a state representative for violating this rule just to muddy the waters during a campaign? The representative may, by the wording of the rule, been in violation.
Perhaps this is why the US Supreme Court has ruled that even the potential application of a rule in such wide-ranging contexts risks a chill on protected speech, and is unconstitutional. NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415, 432-33 (1963).
From the WWL TV article, it appears that Representative Walter Leger (D-New Orleans) started the Twitter movement at the state capital. Mr. Leger is an attorney. Let’s hope he either doesn’t talk about other attorneys on Twitter, or he has taken a vow of poverty. Otherwise, Rule 7.6(d) may technically be problematic.
Facebook, Louisiana Legislature, Rep. Walt Leger, Rule 7.6(d), Social Networking, Twitter, WWL
Recent Comments