New Lawsuit Targets Florida Bar Ad Rules
The Florida Bar has some of the nation’s most far-reaching restrictions on attorney advertising, and it enforces these restrictions zealously. These restrictions include out-and-out prohibitions on referring to past results or using testimonial advertising. Citing these prohibitions, the Bar told Joel Rothman, a Boca Raton attorney with a technology practice, that he was in violation of the Bar’s advertising rules because several of his clients had reviewed him on Avvo.
Thousands upon thousands of clients have reviewed attorneys on Avvo. And while attorneys can certainly ask their clients to leave reviews (as Rothman did), the content of any such review is ultimately up to the client. Attorneys can’t write, post or delete client reviews. Having this sort of independence is critical to providing the kind of trusted feedback that consumers crave when making a purchasing decision. Nonetheless, the Florida Bar Advertising Committee apparently sees no difference between hand-selected testimonial advertising and independent reviews – it’s all prohibited.
Here’s the thing – even hand-picked testimonials shouldn’t be a problem, as long as they aren’t deceptive. This outright ban is, without question, unconstitutional. Even the Federal Trade Commission has told the Florida Bar that its prohibition on testimonials is ill-advised and not in the consumer interest.
Good thing Public Citizen is around – they, along with Rothman, have filed a lawsuit in federal court today asking that Florida’s prohibitions on testimonial advertising and references to past results be declared unconstitutional. This case, along with other litigation filed against New York and Louisiana bar rules, hopefully marks the beginning of the end of overreaching restrictions on attorney advertising everywhere.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
This litigation needs to be reinstated. Given the settlement of the litigation followed immediately by a the issuance of a new rule by the Florida Supreme Court that prohibits AVVO from listing testimonials and ratings, attorneys are left with only one solution: sue or risk being found in violation of the rules.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:29 am
The last sentence of the official comment to the newly amended Rule 4-7.6 says “This rule is not triggered merely because someone other than the lawyer gratuitously links to, or comments on, a lawyer’s Internet website.” If the attorney has no control over who posts what on the profile, and the posting is “gratuitous,” then the rule does not apply. At least not according to the comment.