Louisiana Online Ad Rules for Lawyers Stifle Speech, Suits Allege
Online free speech is unconstitutionally expensive for lawyers in Louisiana, according to two lawsuits filed against the state’s new professional code for lawyers. It’s the latest flare-up affecting lawyers’ promotional activity through online publishing and advertising since the American Bar Association proposed limits on lawyers’ keyword advertising earlier this year. Critics said the proposals would have harmed consumer access to information by giving “legal consensus” backup to companies trying to prevent competitors from using their trademarks as keywords (WID Feb 4 p3).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The Louisiana rules were approved this summer by the state Supreme Court, which said they were intended to prevent unethical advertising. But two weeks ago the court held off their implementation until April 1, from December 1, following a lawsuit by personal injury attorneys Morris Bart and William Gee and activist group Public Citizen. Another lawsuit followed this week from construction attorney Scott Wolfe, who targeted the rules’ effects on his Web 2.0 promotional activities.
The Louisiana State Bar Association’s rules committee basically plagiarized New York and Florida rules limiting what lawyers could claim in ads, and who could appear in them, said the Public Citizen suit. The New York rules were later rejected in federal court, and Florida’s rules are under legal challenge there, the suit said. The amendments to Louisiana’s code are based on “imaginary problems” and “hostility toward advertising lawyers, and regulators’ subjective ideas of good taste.” Public Citizen’s suit focused on the lawyers’ TV ads.
The Wolfe suit focuses on his and his firm’s use of Facebook, LinkedIn, lawyer rating site Avvo and Twitter, as well as their blog posts, podcasts and planned “videocasts.” The rules would prevent the firm from buying keyword ads on search engines that don’t have room to display information required under the rules, such as the attorney responsible for the ad or its physical location, the suit said: “The applicability of traditional media in the ‘Web 2.0 marketplace’ is significantly deteriorating, and businesses that do not advertise through online media will be at a competitive disadvantage.”
The new rules may also require Wolfe to submit his blog posts for prior review to the state bar with a $175 fee for each, Wolfe said. The sheer breadth of Wolfe’s online activity for his profession -- including answering user questions at Avvo, commenting on colleagues’ legal blogs and guest blogging himself -- would ensure regular prior review by the state bar, he said. The only exemption from review is for a lawyer’s own Web site, but it’s unclear whether a blog on, or affiliated with, the site also is exempt, he said.
Wolfe took to the Internet to promote his cause, creating a site on the case, “Blog No Evil” at ProtectSpeech.com. He also created a Facebook “cause” group for the crusade.
A representative of the American Bar Association said a committee is considering preliminary proposals for lawyer ads, but they're still in a fledgling state.