Attorney Advertising Rights: 2012 Case Review

By on January 7, 2013 in Advertising

Attorney Advertising Rules_1As I often tell groups of attorneys, state bars don’t have a free hand to regulate attorney speech.  Believe it or not, we members of the bar have rights under the First Amendment.

Shocking, I know.

This little impediment hasn’t stopped attorney regulators from trying to stifle attorney speech.  A number of states only begrudgingly accept that attorneys have a first amendment right to advertise their services, despite the fact that the unbroken trend – over more than two dozen Supreme Court cases in the last 30 years – is toward greater and greater protection for advertising and other forms of commercial speech.

While the Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on attorney speech in 2012, the year saw three Circuit court decisions that highlight the growing cleft between the free speech rights of attorneys and the struggle within some bars to regulate how their members communicate with the public.

Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Committee (2nd Circuit)

Want to trumpet the fact that you’ve earned specialist certification from, say, the National Board of Trial Advocacy?  Fine, said New York . . . as long as you add a “prominent” disclaimer, reading “The NTBA is not affiliated with any governmental authority. Certification is not a requirement for the practice of law in the State of New York and does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other attorneys experienced in this field of law.”

Gee, thanks, New York.  You wanna spit on my shoes, too?

Thankfully, the court of appeals had no trouble dismissing this mean-spirited little disclaimer, finding it to be “far more intrusive than necessary, and is entirely unsupported by the record.”    The court also tossed the requirement that the disclaimer be “prominently made” as unconstitutionally vague.

Lesson for the bars:  disclaimers aren’t panaceas.  Use them only where this a good reason, and don’t overreach.

Berry v. Schmitt (6th Circuit)

Look, every litigator knows that it’s not a good idea to publicly criticize a court in which they are representing clients.  And there’s no question that attorneys should expect to be disciplined if their off-the-reservation comments interfere with the judicial proceedings, amount to defamation or indicate an unmitigated lack of respect for the law.

But what about comments made by attorneys about courts in which they are not appearing as advocates?  Shouldn’t attorneys have the right to criticize the judicial branch of government without fear of discipline?

Yep.  Following precedent from the Ninth Circuit, the 6th Circuit found that the Kentucky Bar Association violated the first amendment rights of one of its members when it sent a letter warning him for criticizing a quasi-judicial state legislative ethics commission.

Lesson for the bars:  Attorneys, just like every other citizen, have the right to criticize government officials.

Dex Media v. City of Seattle (9th Circuit)

This case had nothing to do with the law of lawyering, but everything to do with how narrow the commercial speech doctrine – and by extension, the ability of bars to regulate attorney speech – has become.

I’ll write a longer post later digging into Dex Media, but the general concept it addressed was how the law should treat communications that have mixed editorial and marketing content.  Is such media considered commercial speech, thus subjecting the state to a lower bar when regulating it?  Or does its blended nature remove it from the realm of advertising, requiring any state regulation to survive strict scrutiny analysis?

The details will have to wait for my later post, but suffice it to say for now that the court found that the yellow pages aren’t commercial speech.  And if the yellow pages aren’t subject to advertising regulation, think about what this means for legal blogs and other forms of attorney communications that have an underlying business development motive but are editorial in nature.

Lesson for the bars:  Your rules may be broadly written, but they can’t be applied to many of the new forms of one-to-many communications that attorneys engage in today.

None of these cases are outliers; they all build on the established body of law limiting the ability of the state to regulate speech – even when that speech contains advertising, and even when that speech is engaged in by attorneys.  And that’s a good thing both for attorneys looking to communicate more broadly and consumers seeking information about legal services.

Josh King

About 

Josh King is General Counsel & Vice President of Business Development at Avvo. He is responsible for Avvo's legal, business development, business operations, customer service, finance and human resources functions. He is also a frequent writer and speaker on interactive media and professional ethics issues. Prior to joining Avvo in 2007, Josh spent over a decade in the wireless industry, in a mix of legal and non-legal roles: Vice President, Corporate Development at AT&T Wireless, Director of Business Development for Clearwire, and General Counsel for Cellular One of San Francisco. Josh started his legal career as a litigator in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Click here to subscribe to Josh’s “Socially Awkward” newsletter for monthly news and analysis on the intersection between social media and the practice of law.


Get more articles like this by email!

Comments (3)

 

  1. Your analysis of Dex Media is dangerously misleading. *Advertising* in the yellow pages is still commercial speech. Dex doesn’t change anything about that.

    Yes, the yp is a “mixed-content” publication that contains both commercial and non-commercial speech. But they are clearly separated; white pages are non-commercial, yellow pages are commercial.

    This simply doesn’t apply to a blog post, where the question is whether the *nature* of the post as a whole is commercial or non.

    You might want to revise the phrase “the yellow pages aren’t commercial speech”.

    • Josh King Josh King says:

      Nope. The Yellow Pages *aren’t* commercial speech. The issue isn’t whether the ads (which obviously ARE commercial speech) and the community pages are “clearly separated.” It’s whether the overall package is something the state can regulate under the commercial speech doctrine. Dex Media concluded that it can’t, and the same analysis should apply to legal blogs. But I will get more into the details in a later post.

  2. Josh King Josh King says:

    Thanks, Ben. The Hunter case is interesting indeed – I cover it in my “Law of Blogging” webinar.

    Josh

Leave a Reply

© 2014 Avvo, Inc. All Rights Reserved