Suit Challenges Florida Bar Rules On Advertising and Websites

Avvo is at the center of another first amendment tussle between an attorney who would like to be free to market his business and the Florida Bar Association, which like many of its counterparts around the United States, takes it upon itself to "protect" consumers from the marketing efforts of its own members.

 The craziness that ensues when modern marketing (especially Internet marketing) meets the antiquated rules of state bar associations (which still conceive of lawyers as members of some sort of 17th century guild) would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

 In a lawsuit against the Florida Bar, a Boca Raton attorney is challenging the Bar rules that prevent him from using client testimonials, from characterizing the quality of his services, or referring to "past successes or results obtained."

 In other words, if my firm, Smart Marketing, were governed by Florida Bar rules, I would not be able to say the following: "We're a high-quality marketing firm that has had a lot of success in taking our clients' practices to the next level. Here are some case histories from some of our clients."

 The Florida Bar believes that you are not competent to evaluate such claims for yourself and need to be "protected" from them. Avvo seeks to provide consumers with information about attorneys, including what experiences other consumers have had with those attorneys. The Florida Bar doesn't want that, either, as it forbids its members to put Avvo in touch with those same members' former clients.

 The Florida Bar apparently sees the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an enemy. From their own press release:   "Florida, as all states, is constrained in its authority to regulate attorney advertising by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Florida Bar supports the most restrictive limitations on lawyer advertising consistent with constitutional requirements so as to better protect the public."

 So, if it were not "constrained" by our basic liberties of free speech, the Florida Bar would put into effect more "restrictive limitations" in order to "protect" us. I can only say, thank goodness for the First Amendment.

Comments

[Shlaini]

Mark - thanks for writing about this important issue. I hope more lawyers in Florida become aware of how restrictive the advertising rules in Florida really are.

[Mike]

I'm always suspicious when authority figures want to protect people from themselves. That's doubly true, when in this case, the authority figures are themselves members of the bar and have a stake in the outcome. (It is almost axiomatic that those who sit on bar committees making these rules are the ones who stand to suffer from the competition fostered by advertising lawyers.)

Certainly, lawyers ought not be allowed to make fraudulent statements, or to recruit others to make fraudulent statements on their behalf. But if a client has a good experience with a lawyer, and honestly describes that experience, that ought to be allowed.

Frankly, the bar discourages attorneys from providing any kind of truly useful information to potential clients. How are clients supposed to decide which out of a number of lawyers to hire if they're only allowed to consider education, number of years in practice, and price?