Florida Not A Fan Of The Internet; Potentially Rules Out Lawyer Blogs

from the nice-work dept

Fri, Jan 15th 2010 7:27am — Mike Masnick

You may recall recently that the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion saying that judges shouldn't use Facebook to connect with any lawyers. This made little sense since judges can, in fact, be friendly with lawyers in real life. There must be something in the water down there, as new rules from the Florida Bar are so broad that they could potentially ban lawyer blogs because of an attempt to more carefully limit how lawyers "advertise" (found via Michael Scott):

The substantive rules provide, among other things, that an attorney website can't "describe or characterize the quality of legal services being offered." Rule 4-7.2(c)(2) Thus, I can't tell you in this post that I'm committed to using my legal skills to provide positive results for my clients (even though this is true). And I can't give you information regarding my past results, so I probably shouldn't tell you the true information that I lost a case I argued in a Florida court as cooperating counsel for the ACLU in a "John Doe" case. Rule 4-7.2(c)(1)(F). I also can't include testimonials; therefore, I request any former students or clients not to post comments saying what a wonderful lawyer and/or professor I am. Dramatizations and many other creative marketing devices are also verboten. Of course, my personal concerns about the new bar rules are trivial when set beside those of all the Florida law firms who must now spend vast sums of money to revamp their websites to try to comply with the new rules, not to mention the concerns of non-Florida firms that hire Florida attorneys.

That same blog post, by Lyrissa Lidsky, reasonably points out that the First Amendment should protect legal advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading. Of course, this issue has come up in the past as well. Five years ago, we wrote about concerns that laws in Kentucky required "filing fees" for lawyers to pay for "each advertisement" that would make legal blogging in the state prohibitively expensive.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising, blogging, florida, lawyers

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pickle Monger (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:24am

Lawyers, eh?
Lawyers screwing other lawyers... Insert your joke here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:22am

They're just lawyers. Not like there isn't enough bullshit on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:30am

Not so sure...
"The substantive rules provide, among other things, that an attorney website can't "describe or characterize the quality of legal services being offered." Rule 4-7.2(c)(2) Thus, I can't tell you in this post that I'm committed to using my legal skills to provide positive results for my clients (even though this is true)."

IANAL, but based on the language in his sentence, it seems to me that he COULD say that, because he'd be speaking about the quality of his committment more than the quality of his legal services. He isn't saying his legal services are always outstanding, just that he is committed to his services creating positive results. What lawyer isn't? Doesn't every lawyer want to win his clients case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:36am

Re: Not so sure...
How to summon a lawyer:
Chant "Billable Hours" until one shows...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:36am

Iowa is the same way - does not allow any advertiing by lawyers. My sister is a lawyer in Iowa and for some time also in Illinois. She couldn't advertise in Illinois - where it was legal - because it would be a violation of Iowa law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Not so sure...
"How to summon a lawyer:
Chant "Billable Hours" until one shows..."

I thought you also had to do the chanting in front of the bathroom mirror with all the lights off, then they show up and kill you. I'm pretty sure that's what you need to do to summon a lawyer.

....well, either that or change your name to OJ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a-dub (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:46am

"I request any former students or clients not to post comments saying what a wonderful lawyer and/or professor I am."

The term "wonderful lawyer" may be an oxymoron. But seriously, it's one thing to restrict a lawyer from advertising, but for a client to not be able to post information about a lawyer is just stupid. So is this just restricting positive posts only?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: Re: Not so sure...
I'm not 100% clear on the ritual--I'm more interested in what one has to do in order to completely avoid lawyers altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:49am

Its just more old-school thinkism. When the internet started getting popular everyone thought how marvelous it was. Then after a few years reality set in and some people (record labels, book publishers, etc) discovered that consumers didn't really need them anymore. Same thing here. People are finding creative new ways to stay connected and the old guard is freaking out. Let them fade away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Granat, 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:49am

Ethical Rules and Innovation
I was going to use the tag line for my web site at http://www.mdfamilylawyer.com: "Law That You Can Afford," but I thought it would violate a rule in Maryland that is similar to the Florida rule, so I didn't user it.

I am going to use it for another web site that is not a law firm web site, although I am not sure that discussing price as an attribute of a legal service is the same as a characterization of the quality of the legal service offered, as it just relates to pricing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:23am

First Amendment doesn't protect Advertising
That same blog post, by Lyrissa Lidsky, reasonably points out that the First Amendment should protect legal advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading.
How is that reasonable? By that line of reasoning, the First Amendment should protect cigarette advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Burgos, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:39am

Re: First Amendment doesn't protect Advertising
By that line of reasoning, the First Amendment should protect cigarette advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading.

How is this unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so sure...
Ya cant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so sure...
I think it has something to do with a combination of wooden stakes, silver bullets, garlic, and being deaf dumb and blind....which seems like it'd be an inconvenience....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so sure...
easiest method to avoid them completely is to drink all the liquids under your sink. Of course they'll be all over your body afterwards, but your immortal soul (which is who you really are) will have moved on to a new place (no guarantees that there are no lawyers there though)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Florida Boy, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:40am

Florida, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:48am

Re: First Amendment doesn't protect Advertising
By that line of reasoning, the First Amendment should protect cigarette advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading.

Yes, and that line of reasoning would be correct for any entity not presently loathed by Rob Reiner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so sure...
Chant "Flat fee"....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Maresca (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:09am

Preventing competition
It seems to be that a large part of bar association rules are aimed at preventing true competition among lawyers, thus keeping fees high.

The US is pretty interesting as there is one group of people who have basically completely gamed the political system - the lawyers. Because of this, it's likely that there will never be any attempts at breaking the bar association monopolies or creating laws that are more open and friendly to the public....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lee Stevens, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:47pm

Right wingers working slow and steady
This is just the first shot on a whole agenda of stopping free speech on the internet.The crap they are pulling in Florida across the board wont stand up to the light of day and they know it.They have learned by football spread the defense apart then you can start running crap up the middle.
Wonder why the rhetoric on the right has gotten so loud and obnoxious? If i keep the dialogue so far right of center and you buy and accept that then I am much more likely to get things done right up the middle crap, you never would have put up with before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:25pm

Re: First Amendment doesn't protect Advertising
> First Amendment doesn't protect Advertising

Yes, it does. Per the Supreme Court, commercial speech is entitled to 1st Amendment protection, just at a somewhat lesser level than non-commercial speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:47pm

But I'm sure on mainstream television / commercials lawyers are allowed to advertise. I say this is just an attempt at class warfare again, just like the laws requiring "non journalists" to reveal their sources and the FCC disclosure rules that don't apply to certain celebrities, it's just an attempt to continue to give the evil top one percent a greater government granted unlevel playing field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:48pm

Re:
Ie: look at Larry Parker and many other big law firms. I see their commercials all the time and they say they're committed to their clients and whatnot. There are tons of lawyers advertising on T.V. and I'm sure it's allowed in the states where it's banned from the Internet. Again, class warfare is what it is. It's nothing less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Florida No Fault Insurance, 16 Jan 2010 @ 8:19pm

I really don't understand what some law makers are trying to achieve here.

Today lawyers, tomorrow insurance agents, next week teachers...

Should we just not talk to each other, lock ourselves in our houses, watch TV ads for big brands, pay our taxes and just be silent consumers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 12:37pm

Re:
"Should we just not talk to each other, lock ourselves in our houses, watch TV ads for big brands, pay our taxes and just be silent consumers?"

Absolutely, the government exists for the sole purpose of serving the top one percent at public expense and that's just about all they do. and you shouldn't do anything about it because the top one percent, those with no regard for morality, are better than the rest of us due to their complete disregard for morality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gainesville Dentist, 3 Aug 2010 @ 9:11am

Dont be so social
In an age where one can seemingly be fired from a position for posting a picture on a social media site i think its prudent that public officials also not fraternize with questionable colleagues in such a manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]