Posts Tagged Wolfe Law Group
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
Judge Feldman Hears Arguments in Louisiana Attorney Advertising Regulations Challenge
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in Wolfe v LADB on July 29th, 2009
This morning, Judge Feldman with the United States Eastern District Court for Louisiana heard arguments from plaintiffs and defendants on the constitutionality of new attorney advertising regulations in Louisiana. The regulations are set to take effect on October 1, 2009.
The Court presided over arguments related to Motions for Summary Judgment filed by all parties to the action, and a Motion to Dismiss from the Defendants.
Plaintiffs Scott Wolfe Jr. and Wolfe Law Group argued that the Louisiana advertising regulations restricted Internet advertisements without identifying any harm or problem with those advertisements, and without crafting the rules to practically work with how attorneys use the Internet to advertise and communicate.
You can read all of the pleadings set for hearing at our JD Supra page, including Scott Wolfe and Wolfe Law Group’s Summary Judgment Memorandum.
Judge Feldman adjourned court at approximately 12:30 p.m., and took the matter under advisement, promising to release an opinion “without delay.”
JDSupra, Judge Feldman, Scott Wolfe Jr, United States Eastern District Court of Louisiana, Wolfe Law Group
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
Louisiana Ad Rules Pushed Back 6 Months, WLG Files Motion for Summary Judgment
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in LA Lawyer Ad Rules, Press Release, Wolfe v LADB on February 22nd, 2009
Wolfe Law Group announces the filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment in its challenge of the Louisiana lawyer advertising rules, and the Louisiana Supreme Court announces that the effective date of the rules are postponed until October 1, 2009.
NEW ORLEANS, LA (WolfeLaw) February 19, 2009 — Yesterday, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced that the new lawyer advertising regulations would take effect on October 1, 2009, rather than the previously announced effective date of April 1, 2009.
According to the press release, “the Court has decided to defer implementation of the new rules until October 1, 2009, in order to allow the LSBA and the Court to further study certain rules in light of the constitutional challenges that have been raised.”
As many of our clients and friends know, Scott Wolfe Jr. and Wolfe Law Group filed a federal lawsuit against the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board in November 2008 to challenge the new lawyer advertising regulations as unconstitutionally restricting a lawyer’s right to free speech.
On the evening before the Louisiana Supreme Court press release, Wolfe Law Group, along with consolidated Plaintiffs Public Citizen, Inc., William Gee, and Morris Bart, had filed Motions seeking Summary Judgment. The Motion of Scott Wolfe Jr. and Wolfe Law Group is available for viewing on our JDSupra page, here.
Notwithstanding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s postponement of the advertising regulations, the Summary Judgment motions are currently set for hearing on March 4, 2009 at 10:00 A.M.
To continue commenting upon the progress of the action, the firm launched a blog titled “Blogging is Speaking,” at the web address http://www.protectspeech.com. The blog was updated this morning with a new look, and more user-friendly layout.
For a copy of the lawsuit, click here.
Find the cause on Facebook here.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 08-4994, Section F, Magistrate 2.
JDSupra, Louisiana Supreme Court, Morris Bart, Public Citizen, William Gee, Wolfe Law Group
Plaintiff Files Initial Disclosures
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in Wolfe v LADB on January 22nd, 2009
On January 2, 2009, the Plaintiff (Wolfe Jr. & Wolfe Law Group) delivered its Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures to the Defendants in this case.
The Initial Disclosures can be downloaded and/or viewed at the Blog No Evil JD Supra page by clicking here.
Discovery is now on-going, and we’ll be updating the site soon with additional pleadings and updates.
Do Louisiana Ad Rules “Ban Blogs?”
Posted by Scott Wolfe Jr in LA Lawyer Ad Rules, Wolfe v LADB on November 28th, 2008
In response to our federal complaint, the lawyer blogging nation sent both their well-wishes and skepticism. We’ve also seen some welcomed press about our fight against the Louisiana State Bar Association’s new advertising rules, including an article from the ABA Journal (here) and the National Law Journal (here).
Unfortunately, however, there has been a bit of confusion about our complaint with the new advertising rules, and this brings me to the question of this post:
Do the Louisiana Advertising Rules “Ban Blogs?”
The short answer: No. The long answer: Well, blogs are implicated.
Rule 7.6(b) exempts a lawyer’s or law firm’s website from the costly evaluation process. A lawyer’s blog would therefore presumably be considered under the purview of 7.6(b), and not required to go through the evaluation process.
Websites and blogs (even if exempt from evaluation) will still be implicated by the new rules, as they are subject to the restrictive (and possibly unconstitutional in itself) Rule 7.2.
By exempting the law firm’s website, Louisiana skirted the issue of whether to specifically regulate lawyer blogs. But since 7.2 applies to blogs, it begs the question: Can the government regulate our blogs just as they regulate our “advertisements?”
A component of this blog’s purpose is to promote the idea that “blogging” and “advertising” do not go hand-in-hand, and that if the government is going to regulate both, it must at least distinguish between the two.
This important issue, however, will be addressed further on this blog, and through the proceeding itself.
Suffice to say for now, however, that the new advertising rules do not outright restrict an attorney’s ability to blog. Thus, the above-stated “short answer.”
So What’s The Real Problem?
Wolfe Law Group’s real complaint with the Louisiana lawyer advertising rules are two-fold:
1) The rules restrict attorneys from advertising through certain mediums, and specifically, through online media that limits character counts.
This argument concerns real red-blooded traditional advertisements. Since the new rules require certain information to be contained within every ad, they restrict or eliminate an attorney’s ability to communicate a message through Google Ads, Google Mobile Ads, and similar online advertisements, because the required information simply won’t fit.
2) Rule 7.6 (d) subjects all “computer-accessed communications concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services” to the evaluation process, and all advertising regulations.
In the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Handbook on Advertising, this is explained to include “all computer-accessed communications concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services, other than the Web site or home page of the lawyer or law firm.”
The implications of this rule is at the heart of the federal suit.
First, the definition of “advertisements” as all “computer-accessed communications concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services” is simply too broad, and it includes things that are not advertisements and – possibly – not commercial speech.
Second, 7.6(d) would seemingly apply to:
- Comments by an attorney on the blog posts of others, on sites that are not owned by them;
- “Answers” or legal information given to the public on sites such as Avvo or LawGuru;
- Posts on micro-blogging platforms like Twitter, which includes information posted by an attorney on his or her own profile page, or possibly on the face of other users’ pages;
- Participation by an attorney in podcasts, or online videos, wherein the discussion “concerns the lawyer’s services,” if that podcast or online video appears off the lawyer’s website;
- “Guest Blogging;”
- Posting of documents on services like JD Supra (incidentally, this could possibly be considered forbidding since it is an “advertisement” that “resembles a legal pleading” in violation of Rule 7.2(c)(K));
- Facebook pages (and changes thereto), LinkedIn profiles (and changes thereto);
- The appearance of your blog posts across the web on other websites via RSS feeds; etc.
Conclusion
The new Louisiana advertising rules do not “ban blogging.” However, the rules are so broad that they implicate an attorney’s right to freely speak about his or her trade, to participate in online social communities, and to communicate about his or her services though online media not “on the lawyer’s website.”
The attempt by Louisiana to equate “advertising” with “communicating about the lawyer’s or law firm’s services,” is stretching the U.S. Supreme Court’s commercial speech doctrines to include non-commercial speech by attorneys. And while the rules do not bar blogging per se, the rules do interfere with the blogger, and the blogger’s ability to harness the power of the Internet to communicate with clients, colleagues and the public.
Learn More
Learn more about the fight against the Louisiana State Bar Association by subscribing to this blog’s RSS Feed.
You can also read the Louisiana lawyer advertising rules at lsba.org here.
Download and read the filed complaint through the JD Supra service by clicking here.
ABA Journal, Commercial Speech Doctrine, JDSupra, Social Networking, Wolfe Law Group
Recent Comments