This Blog Is False and Misleading (in New York)

by Greg Beck

In the name of protecting consumers from false and misleading lawyer advertising, New York is proposing draconian new restrictions on Internet communications and other forms of attorney advertising that will directly impact attorneys who maintain blogs or websites in New York, or in many cases who simply send an email into the state.  Instead of protecting consumers, however, the proposed rules will burden completely truthful and non-misleading communication by attorneys, and will serve no purpose other than to deprive consumers of useful information about their legal rights, protect established law firms from competition, and render many aspects of the Internet largely unusable for New York attorneys.

Stripped to their essence, the proposed amendments would define the term "advertisement" extremely broadly as any public communication made "by . . . a lawyer . . . about a lawyer."  Sec. 1200.1(k). This definition explicitly includes all forms of communication on the Internet, including websites, email, and instant messaging.  Sec. 1200.1(m).  There is no requirement that the speech be commercial in nature or related to the lawyer's practice of law.

Because this blog contains information about its contributing attorneys, it would fall squarely within the proposed rule’s definition of advertising.  If this blog were located in New York, contributing attorneys would therefore be required by the proposed rules to print a hard copy of the blog every time it is modified.  Sec. 1200.6(n). They would then have to store the printout for a period of at least a year, and send an additional copy to the New York attorney disciplinary committee for its records.  Sec. 1200.6(n) & (o)(iii). The rules would also require the blog to be branded with the words "Attorney Advertising" and include the names, office addresses, telephone numbers, and lists of licensing jurisdictions of participating attorneys.  Sec. 1200.6(h), (j) & (k). Because the blog does not contain the full name of a lawyer or law firm in its URL, the page would need to list the names of participating attorneys in a font at least as large as the largest font on the page (in this case, the names would need to be in at least a 60-point font to match the large banner title).  Sec. 1200.7(e)(1).  Furthermore, although it surely could not have been intended to reach this broadly, the rule appears to subject any links from a website to these onerous restrictions.  Sec. 1200.1(m).

The same rules would also apply to email sent by lawyers to public listservs, and even to private email if it "concern[s] the availability for professional employment of a lawyer or law firm.”  Sec. 1200.1(l).  Unlike web pages, however, email would have to be saved for a period of three years.  Sec. 1200.6(n).

Finally, the proposed rules would impose a litany of other restrictions on attorney advertising that will primarily impact television advertisements, including prohibitions on the use of actors to portray judges, lawyers, or clients; the reenactment of events; and the use of celebrity endorsements.  Sec. 1200.6(d).  Most of these restrictions would not affect this blog, although, depending on how one reads the language, the picture of the Supreme Court’s facade at the top of the page would arguably run afoul of the restriction on "depict[ing] the use of a courtroom or courthouse.”  Sec. 1200.6(d)(6).

Like many state restrictions on attorney advertising, New York’s proposed amendments appear to be intended less to prevent consumer misunderstanding than to prohibit the most effective forms of lawyer advertising.  The burdens imposed on attorneys under these rules would be overwhelming and unworkable, would generate untold amounts of useless paperwork both for the attorney and the state disciplinary commission, and would totally undermine the potential of the Internet as a medium for cheap and efficient means of mass communication.

Consumer advocates should obviously be concerned about advertisements that are false or misleading.  But they should also be concerned when states restrict truthful and non-misleading advertisements that prevent consumers from receiving useful information about pricing and product or service alternatives.  Truthful advertising is a form of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court recognized in the landmark case Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, a "consumer's interest in the free flow of commercial information . . . may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day's most urgent political debate."  Furthermore, restriction of truthful advertising gives an unfair advantage to established market participants that find customers primarily through referrals and word of mouth.  New competitors, who depend on advertising to make their message heard, are locked out of the market.  With less competition, prices go up and consumers suffer.

State courts and bar associations for decades have used attorney codes of ethics to restrict competition by limiting the kinds of truthful information that lawyers can communicate to potential clients.  But, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down similar rules as unconstitutional, states don’t seem to be getting the message.

New York is accepting comments on its proposed rules, and I'm told the comment deadline has been extended until November 15.

Comments

[personal injury lawyer nyc]

don't they just love to complicate things. Not to mention that sometimes they get you "you" too and than you start promoting in a really viral way all the "important " infos !

[viagra online]

Had it not been for an attorney's website recently, I was made aware of the "Whistleblower Act" that apparently helped my friend with a decision she was facing. Under this proposal in New York

[buy wholesale]

A short video clip dealing with overconsumption.

[Mikhaila Clements]

Found this older post and am happy to see that we went in the right direction!

[Payday Loan Advocate]

The improper use of payday loans can lead to mortgage crisis that is why one of the biggest targets for politicians, as far as economics are concerned, is becoming the payday loan industry. Governors across the country are trying to rid their states of the industry altogether, and so far, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon have succeeded. The result was that bankruptcies, foreclosures, and also the number of overdraft fees due to bouncing checks went through the roof, which doesn’t do anything for the citizens afflicted in these turbulent times, and only is really good for the banking industry. Despite these negative effects, other states are looking to follow the example and do the same. Even at the national level, presidential candidate Barack Obama, is weighing in his own agenda on the issue, and advancing his own intentions on getting rid of the industry in the United States completely. If these measures, both on state levels and nationally, are successful, the results are going to be increased unemployment, more debt, more foreclosures, and an even worse economy.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

[Holly Wild]

This doctrine does not make sence for both New York attorneys & consumers - It hinders the information available out there taht helps consumers who are now internet savvy in recieving information on any subject relating to the law via the internet. Who came up with this silly idea and why?

[B. Mitchell]

A short video clip dealing with overconsumption.

[Samara]

As a layperson [that's me] sees it, with this proposal, would I then be limited to the Yellow Pages for choosing my attorney?

Had it not been for an attorney's website recently, I was made aware of the "Whistleblower Act" that apparently helped my friend with a decision she was facing. Under this proposal in New York, my friend would not have known anything about it.

Wonderful. With our rights dwindling daily and attorney's costing arms and legs we'll soon be left with an undemocracy. The average middle classer cannot afford to keep an attorney on retainer just in case he wants to push the envelope to free speech. So when a corporate giant threatens to sue for a patently [no pun intent] false trademark infringement he rolls over and gives them the domain name.

I know for a undisputed fact that attorney websites and blogs do give the average john q. public the courage to continue pushing that envelope of the 1st Amendment. In my assessment, if it didn't get pushed, we wouldn't have needed it in the first place.

[david giacalone]

Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the legal weblog community. I've been trying to sound this alarm for the past couple of years. Of course, the problem goes far beyond bar associations not understanding weblog format and technology (as discussed here http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/06/07/kentucky-says-every-blawg-post-is-an-ad/, regarding the Kentucky Bar's equating of weblogs with advertising. In the name of consumer protection and professional dignity, important segments of the New York Bar (and regulators in other states - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/09/26/missouri-newsflash-legal-consumers-are-really-stupid/) are demonstrating their deep dislike of lawyer advertising. I've called them the Dignity Police, but they are also very much an Anticompetitive Guild, distrustful of competitive forces and innovation.

As discussed at length in this post - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/11/18/more-dignity-police-ny-bar-disses-lawyer-advertising/, the NYSBA effort has been led by the 2005 Bar President A. Vincent Buzard, who proudly confessed that he wants to limit lawyer advertising “to the fullest extent permitted, within the limitations of the First Amendment.”

Of course, consumers do not need more paternalism and phony professionalism. They need more competition, choices and information. Lawyers and judges who truly want to put the interests of clients first, must have more faith in the benefits of the First Amendment and of competition, and less reliance on false notions of dignity and propriety. And, they must start voicing their opposition to burdensome, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer regulations like those currently proposed in New York.