1/17/2007
Rule 7.2(b)(1)(K) exempting from filing "a photography or image of the lawyer or lawyers who are mebers of or employed by the firm against a plain background", should add "or are engaged in a bar association or other legal society events or that depict the attorney involved in a social or charitable event unrelated to the practice of law." This would exception would allows pictures of an attorney engaged is say an Inns of Court event to be posted on the attorneys website without requiring approval. Rule 7.2(c)(1)(J): Includes a portrayal of a judge or jury. This provision would seem to include pictures of actual judges. Among the times I can think that this would be an issue would be 1) Press release showing the ribbon cutting of a new law office by a rural courthouse (especially if gumbo or crawfish is involved), 2) press releases involving some form of civic event (for example inviting a judge to speak at the local Kiwanis and afterwords putting out a press release showing a picture of the judge and identifying the club, the subject of the discussion and the firm who arranged for the speeker). Rule 7.2(c)(2) prohibits statements characterizing the quality of the lawyers services. Please define quality. Rule 7.4(a) "Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this Rule...", subdivision (b) is solely a restrcitive passage dealing with written communications. As written an attorney may not "solicit" "in person" somebody who walks into his or her office and requests information about legal services! "shall not solicit professional employment. . . through others acting. . . on the lawyer's behalf . . . when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain." I have no control over whom my mother or other family members recomend me to!!! "A lawyer shall not permit employees or agent of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer's behalf." Solicitiation is not well defined by these articles but seems to be contact with a non-client or non-family member about employment. As written this would prohibit non-attorney marketing directors. It would also prohibit having a non-attorney foreign language speaker assit in landing a non-english speaking client. Additionally, it would also seem to exclude an attorney telling a translator "I think I've explaned things to her, can you please check to make sure she understands what I do and how the fee arrangment works?" (E) "Any unsolicited written communication prompted by a specific occuerrence involving or affecting the intended recipient of the communication or a family member of that person shall disclose how the lawyer obtained the information prompting the communication." If somebody comes into my office and say's they were sexually abused by a priest, that they saw these others also sexually abused, and requests that I contact them but not reveal the clients name except as to co-clients, then I'm NOT giving out that information. I'm not labeling the correspondence as an advertisement either and I most certainly am not filing the correspondence with a public bar committee. These provisions should contain an exception for contact request by a current client at least as relates to matters related to that clients representation. 7.5(b)(2)(C) A non-lawyer spokesperson speaking on behalf of the lawyer . . . shall provide a spoken disclosure identifying the spokeperson as a spokesperson..." As written this would require a disclosure on a radio ad where the announcer does not represent himself to be an attorney but simply provides information about the attorney's available services. 7.6(b) requires disclosures if an attorney sponsors a website that contains information regarding the law firms services. It is unclear whether this can be supplied by linkage to the firms website. Specifically, if I sign up to sponsor a local sports teams website and get the tag line: "Sponsored by Stephen D. Delear, Attorney at Law, LLC: Wills & Successions [link to my website]" is this an acceptable disclosure where my website has all the required information prominently displayed?
 

1/14/2007
the goldbarb ruling was wrong
 

1/12/2007
View this comment in PDF format.
 

1/11/2007
The proposed rules merit close scrutiny by the LSBA and the La. Supreme Court. Many of the limitations on lawyer advertising are unduly restrictive if not patently unconstitutional, and, moreover, disserve the public interest in retaining competent legal representation. By way of example, the following proposed rules are entirely without merit: - Rule 7.2(b)(1)(B): the prohibition on any reference to past successes or results. Members of the public have a keen interest in knowing if a particular lawyer or lawfirm has been successful in handling similar types of cases. Banning such information in legal advertisements does not serve any legitimate purpose. - Rule 7.2(b)(1)(E): the prohibition against "testimonials" is unnecessary and improper. The public can take a testimonial for whatever it is worth. A testimonial by a highly respected jurist or lawyer is valuable to members of the public searching for a competent lawyer or lawfirm. Just as lawyers seek feedback (i.e. testimonials) about other lawyers, the public has a valid interest in receiving such information. - Rule 7.2(b)(1)(F): the prohibition against pictures that are not "actual" or "authentic" is vague and overbroad, and chills the exercise of free speech. A picture of an 18-wheeler dump truck is not misleading or deceptive per se, whether or not the truck was involved in an actual accident. Illustrative pictures are quite simply a means of communication. - Rule 7.2(b)(1)(H): the prohibition of a picture depicting use of a courtroom serves no legitimate purpose. Educational materials for lawyers and clients, e.g. How to Take a Deposition, routinely include pictures depicting the use of courtrooms. Again, a pictorial representation of a courtroom in a lawyer or lawfirm advertisement is not per se misleading or deceptive but, rather, a means of communication. - Rule 7.2(b)(3): a prohibition against statements describing or characterizing the "quality" of the lawyer's services serves no legitimate purpose. If an ad states that a lawyer is AV rated by Martindale-Hubble, it describes or characterizes the quality of the lawyer's services. If an ad states that the attorney has been rated one of the top 100 trial lawyers in the U.S. by the "American Lawyer" or the "National Law Journal," it is presumptively unethical under this proposed rule. Again, the quality of a lawyer's services is what any intelligent lay person wants to know before hiring a lawyer. Banning such information from lawyer ads disserves the public interest. - Rule 7.5(b)(1)(B), (C) & (D): the proposed rules banning testimonials by other lawyers, including a spokesperson recognizable in the community, and containing any other but "instrumental" background music, respectively, are overkill and inappropriate. They also smack of censorship such as one would encounter in fascist country, such as Spain under Franco. It is not for the bar to dictate the content of lawyer advertising, provided only that it is neither deceptive nor unfairly misleading. If a famous jurist, writer, artist, scientist, former president, etc. wants to sing the praises of a bar member, there is no legitimate reason to ban such communication. As a lay person, I would like to know if a highly respected, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court (e.g. Sandra Day O'Connor)thinks highly of a particular attorney or law firm. If a lawyer wishes to have James Brown or Frank Sinatra background music in his or her ad, I cannot see any justification to censor such music. No reasonable person, of course, would be induced to hire a particular lawyer or lawfirm because the background music was pleasing to the ear. - Rule 7.10(e): the prohibition against listing the name of a lawyer formerly associated with the firm on its letterhead serves no legitimate purpose and is, moreover, contrary to the public interest. Some of the most prominent law firms in the world include the names of deceased partners on their letterhead, and have done so for at least 100 years! Again, if Abraham Lincoln once practiced law with an ongoing law firm, or if Griffin Bell or Lewis Powell was at one time a partner in the firm, I would like to know that because it would reflect highly on the firm. By what right may the organized bar ban such information on a firm's letterhead? These are just some examples of why I must respectfully critique the proposed rules governing lawyer advertising. Generally, restrictions on lawyer advertising should be narrowly and carefully drawn to further the legitimate interest of the bar in preventing fraud and oppression, ambulance chasing, and the like. The proposed rules employ a bludgeon to rein in improper advertising and solicitation, when a scalpel is what is needed and constitutionally permissible.
 

1/11/2007
THE PROPOSALS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. ADVERTISING ON TV AND IN THE PHONE BOOK IS EMBARASSING AND DEMEANING TO THE ENTIRE PROFESSION. IT'S ABOUT TIME OUR LEADERSHIP HAS DONE SOMETHING TO CURTAIL THIS. LETS SEE IF YOU CAN PASS AND ENFORCE THE PROPOSALS. HOWEVER, THE BAR STILL IGNORES OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM - THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF LAWYERS. WE ARE WALKING ALL OVER EACH OTHER AND IT IS SO VERY DIFFICULT TO JUST SURVIVE NOWADAYS. THE CLIENT BASE IS LIMITED. EVERYBODY AND HIS GRANDMOTHER IS A LAWYER. AND THE LAW SCHOOLS JUST KEEP CRANKING THEM OUT. THEY DONT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. IT IS SUCH A BIG BUSINESS FOR THE LAW SCHOOLS. AND IT CREATES A VICIOUS MONEY-DRIVEN CYCLE THAT PROPOGATES THE SAME IRRESPONSIBLI . ALL OUR BAR ASSOCIATIONS ARE FLUSH WITH CASH AND EMPLOYEES. AND THE MORE LAWYERS GRADUATED, THE MORE DUES THEY RECEIVE. ITS LIKE THE PROVERBIAL FOX IN CHARGE OF THE CHICKEN COOP. OTHER PROFESSIONS SUCH AS VETERNARIANS AND DENTISTS NOW CONTROL SCHOOL GRADUATIONS/ADMISSIONS. AM I THE ONLY LAWYER THAT SEES THIS? WHY CAN'T ANYTHING BE DONE?
 

1/10/2007
On Section 7.2 a (1), the word "communications" is not well defined. For example, does it apply to billboards, which are, of course a form of communications? Billboards, by their nature, should be exempted from some of these rules because they cannot facilitate all of the types of notice required. The rules are, for the most part, directed at letters and TV advertising, which, because of the medium, can accomodate the many "notice" requirement of an attorney's name, referal issues, disclosure of fees, and the like. I would suggest that a separate rule to accomodate billboards be written which would simply require the name of the firm/ a phone number/ and that the message adhere to the dictates of the rules of content (false statements/misleading images or messages). I apologize for the submitting this beyond the recognized deadline. Thank you for your consideration.
 

1/10/2007
I think the proposed rules are well-intentioned and I applaud the motivation. But I am critical of the rules because they don't solve any real problem. If there have been any problems with lawyer advertising they have been localize, not pervasive. In the Post-Katrina world we have many large scale pervasive problems to address. This initiative is unremarkable. I had heard a rumor (no idea how true it is) that the initiative was undertaken to stave off an attempt by a legislator/lawyer who intended to pass some legislation that would be excessive and unconstitutional. If that's true then I'm doubly disappointed. Our legislature has not infrequently passed blatantly unconstitutional laws (e.g. flag burning, and creationism). Taking on lawyer advertising to stave off a senseless move by some legislator seems like meeting one bad idea with another. One may be worse, but both are bad. Then again, maybe I'm wrong about the rumor. I have read the transcripts, and while I don't intend to advertise I agree completely with the remarks of Morris Bart. We need to find ways to be progressive, not regressive. And we should avoid the appearance of bein 'protectionist.' I seriously hope that these rules are not adopted.
 

1/2/2007
I applaude the Committee's work product. I wish to remind the Committee that I believe the "closing date" for the BellSouth telephone book is May 1, 2007. I hope the Rule changes will be in effect well in advance of the above date. Thank you for your work on much-needed revisions to these Rules.
 

12/14/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/27/2006
Comments Regarding Proposed Rules Changes-Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct On behalf of Jones Walker, I write to express concerns with regard to the proposed amendments to the Louisiana Code of Professional Conduct. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes. We support, and have always supported, the need to maintain the highest professional standards within the practice of law, and it is always our goal to communicate with clients and prospective clients in a dignified and forthright manner. We understand that the goal of the proposed changes is to safeguard consumers from misleading advertising and overly aggressive or inappropriate solicitation for legal services. We are concerned, however, that the proposed rules as currently written create unnecessary obstacles hampering the ability of high responsible and professional law firms to effectively communicate with current and prospective clients. We advocate the adoption and implementation of the advertising and solicitation rules contained in the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional conduct, Rules 7.1 through 7.5, amended as a result of the ABA Ethics 2000 Initiative. Not only do these rules provide the necessary consumer protection when they are properly enforced by state disciplinary entities, but if adopted in every state, would create needed certainty in the governance of advertising and solicitation. The ABA rules were developed following extensive study and careful vetting of the policy consideration involved in attorney advertising and solicitation. The drafters sought to balance the need to protect clients and potential clients with the competing need to protect lawyers' commercial free speech rights. The ABA rules are likely to be adopted by many jurisdictions, and thus become widely understood among legal professionals. Thus, states that choose to adopt the ABA rules may well find that the overall compliance with advertising and solicitation requirements improves. With regard to certain sections of the proposed rules, our comments are as follows: Rule 7.2 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services (a) Required Information. (1) Name of Lawyer-"All advertisements and written communications pursuant to these Rules shall include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for their content." Written communications seems overly broad and vague. Why not pattern this section of the Rules after the Model Rules? (2) Location of Practice-"All advertisements and written communications provided for under these Rules shall disclose, by city or town, one or more bona fide office location(s) of the lawyer or lawyers who will actually perform the services advertised." "Written communications" seems overly broad and vague. How will this Rule apply to large firms that might create an advertisement for a particular area of practice, such as real estate. Must the advertisement list all offices of the firm where a real estate attorney resides? (b) Prohibited Statements and Information. (1) Statements About Legal Services-"A lawyer shall not make or permit to be made a false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communication about the lawyer, the lawyer's services or the law firm's services." In this context, what might "unfair" mean? This seems broad and vague. Further with regard to prohibited statements, the paragraphs specifying prohibitions are draconian. If these paragraphs are followed to the letter ,it would appear that no law firm can run a tombstone ad celebrating a client deal, nor congratulate a partner for a deal of the year, nor list that a partner was named to Best Lawyers in America, nor note that the firm was honored for client service in a survey of corporate counsel, nor picked by Corporate Board Member magazine as a top corporate firm for Louisiana, and so on. These facts may be the very facts that corporate consumers would deem highly important in making decisions as to which firms to contact for services. Item D for example, prohibits a comparison to other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated. Would this factual substantiation be deemed to include survey results and publication rankings and/or ratings? These prohibitions are so restrictive as to be in violation of the our right to free speech. Item J, prohibiting the use of a nickname, moniker, motto or trade name that states or implies an ability to obtain results in a matter, is quite broad. Would it prohibit such taglines as "We Know The Territory," (used by an Indiana firm), or "Committed to Excellence"? These are just examples. Presumably, the prohibition does not include the use of shortened, "street" names for firms (Jones Walker instead of the full firm name, for example). (2) Misleading or Deceptive Factual Statements (c)Paragraph b refers to any factual statement contained in any advertisement or written communication or any information furnished to a prospective client under this Rule shall not….be potentially false or misleading. The phrase "potentially false or misleading," is overly broad and vague. Virtually anything could potentially mislead someone! (c) General Regulations Governing Content of Advertisements. (1) Use of Illustrations-Use of illustrations….shall contain no features that are likely to deceive , mislead, or confuse the viewer. This language is too broad and too vague. Would abstract art be deemed confusing? Would a curved line in a logo mislead? (7) Payment by Non-Advertising Lawyer. The language suggests that networks or alliances of firms could not advertise cooperatively. Rule 7.4 Direct Contact With Prospective Clients. Both the Model Rules and Louisiana's prior rule are to be preferred to the new language. The current rule would prohibit a lawyer from contacting a person with whom he or she had developed a close working relationship while working on a board, for example. In 7.4 (a) and later at 7.4 (b) (2) (B), there are references to, in the first instance "a specific recipient" and in the latter instance to a "targeted solicitation." The two are likely to be interpreted differently, and greater clarity of language would be preferable. In paragraph 7.4(b) (2) (B) (i), there appears to be a typo, for the language references a member in good standing of "the Association." Rule 7.7 Evaluation of Advertisements. This section requires copies of advertisements to be kept on file for a period of five years, and that seems to be an unduly long period of time. Rule 7.8 Exemptions From the Filing and Review Requirement Paragraph (c) references a listing or entry in a law list or bar publication. Does this include directory listings such as Martindale Hubbell, or do those listings fall under the filing and retention guidelines. Section (d) exempts communications "mailed only to existing clients, former clients, or other lawyers." Even though directories such as Martindale Hubbell are not "mailed" to clients, are they exempt? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes. Linda A. Hazelton Chief Marketing Officer Jones Walker 504-582-8438 lhazelton@joneswalker.com
 

11/26/2006
It was with great concern that I read the proposed draft regarding attorney advertising. It seemed that the committee lost focus on the 'dignity' and the 'confidence in the profession that exists between the Bar and the public at large. I am a member of the Louisiana bar, but my concern is making the law more accessible to the public, not in distancing the law even further from the public at large. The best argument I can present is that of the FTC, who on September 20, 2002 responded to the the Alabama Supreme Court regarding Alabama's proposed atttorney advertising. I would be more than happy to e-mail the committee the pdf file regarding this matter. The FTC was not pre-occupied with the appearance of the advertisements, only with the content. The draft of the rules seem prohibitorily restrictive and confining. When the background of books is to be used, what type of books must an attorney stand in front of--can an attorney use Comic books? Playboys? Or what about Family Circle or Good Housekeeping? It is the very law that is strangling the accessibility of the public to the attorney's profession. Why can't an attorney talk to the public in the way the public understands? I know of no other profession that would restrict an attorney or any other professional to use the word "Advertisement" on an envelope. Wouldn't this be a prior restraint? What about using comedy in an attorney advertisement? Satire has been one of the most time-honored ways to critize an oppressive condition that could be faced by the public. Can an attorney use criticism of an opponent in an advertisiment for a political party, or would he or she be constrained in this exercise of free speech also? These proposed laws are overbroad in their restrictions and would promote more legislation in their definition and application than in it's passage. Perhaps the best example for attorney advertising should be that of Pornography--using community standards and without any redeeming social value. We all know when attorney advertising crosses the line--'We know it when we see it'. Please refer to the Federal Trade Commission letter I have mentioned in this response. I will remain available to assist the Bar in any way I can regarding this matter. --William J. Koppany LSBA # 29500
 

11/26/2006
I work for one of the advertising firms. It seems to me that by imposing this new set of rules on lawyer advertising, there would be a serious encroachment on protected free speech (commercial). The advertising lawyer should be able to exercise his first amendment rights. Many of the provisions seem overly broad, such as not being able to depict a scene of a courtroom, a legal pleading, or having a testimonial. I would think that the goals of regulating lawyer advertising would be to make sure that there is no false, misleading, or deceptive communication, and that the consumer (client) is allowed to make an informed decision based on the information presented. Many of the provisions, like the ones mentioned above, do not serve this purpose. There are already rules in place that protect against any false, misleading, or deceptive practices. Perhaps, it would serve the interest of consumers better, if the current provisions are better enforced, rather than adopting a whole new set of already outdated provisions (that will serve to micro-manage advertising lawyers).
 

11/26/2006
Committee Members, I write, primarily based on First Amendment concerns, to ask that the proposed rules be moderated some. I am an attorney but have never done paid advertising (unless you consider the Bar Referral services to be that). I believe commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment to some degree. Given this context, I think the Committee should reconsider: A ban on lawyers' describing past successes or results. I assume this factual information is protected by the First Amendment and can be very appropriately relevant to a client's decision as to what lawyers to confer with. If the Committee wants a disclaimer added re 'every case is different', that may be a different matter. Ban on depicting the use of courtrooms and regulating the background images in ads. And finally, re page 18, (d)(4) of the draft, why would the frequency of an ad's use or which markets it will be used in affect its legality? Such a standard seems to be mis-directed. Thank you for your time and efforts.
 

11/24/2006
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Advocacy Center, the non-profit agency established pursuant to federal and state law to protect and advocate on behalf of individuals with disabilities in Louisiana: The Advocacy Center requests that the proposed rules be clarified to define "advertising" to limit it to commercial speech, and to insure that provisions that regulate communications that are not misleading, overreaching, or unduly intrusive, do not apply to communications by lawyers for non-profit organizations that are not motivated by pecuniary gain. With few exceptions, the proposed rules do not limit their restrictions on lawyer speech and association to activities that constitute commercial speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in person and written communications not motivated by pecuniary gain, by lawyers on behalf of nonprofit organizations, advising prospective clients of legal rights and offering representation, are modes of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978), NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). Because these activities are forms of political expression and political association, they are fundamental rights. Regulations affecting these rights must be much more narrowly drawn than those affecting lawyer communications that are motivated by pecuniary gain, and must only prohibit conduct and communications that actually cause the harms (such as undue influence, overreaching, misrepresentation, and the like) that the regulations are designed to prevent. The proposed rules do not contain a definition of “advertisement.” Such a definition, limited to activities that constitute commercial speech rather than protected political activities, would be helpful in clarifying the intended scope of the rules. The rules should make it clear that publications, educational materials, websites, and other communications by lawyers for non-profit organizations that are not motivated by pecuniary gain are not “advertisements” within the meaning of the rules. In their current form, however, only proposed Rule 7.4(a), regarding direct contact with prospective clients, clearly limits its scope to in-person or telephone solicitations that are motivated by the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. In order to avoid unwarranted burdens on fundamental freedoms, proposed rules 7.3(b), 7.6(c), and 7.7(c) should except communications not motivated by pecuniary gain, by lawyers on behalf of nonprofit organizations. The Advocacy Center is a non-profit corporation funded largely through grants from the federal government to provide legal protection and advocacy services to people with mental retardation, developmental disabilities, mental illness, and other disabilities. It employs lawyers and non-lawyers to conduct these activities. Its activities include educating people with disabilities and their families about their legal rights, conducting outreach activities, advocating for changes in public policy to advance the rights of individuals with disabilities, and offering legal representation to remedy violations of individual rights and/or to advance the cause of equal rights for persons with disabilities. Some of its cases are class actions for injunctive and declaratory relief; other cases and activities, while not class actions, are intended and in fact do benefit a large group of people with disabilities. Advocacy Center attorneys are salaried and derive no pecuniary gain from Advocacy Center litigation. The Advocacy Center publishes a quarterly newsletter in which it discusses current and recent cases and activities, conducts outreach to groups and to individuals who may need its services, maintains a website with similar information, and sometimes contacts individuals to explain legal rights and offer representation. In all respects relevant to the proposed rules, the activities of the Advocacy Center are entitled to the same protections as those involved in In re Primus and NAACP v. Button. The proposed rules recognize the constitutional status of such activities when, in proposed Rule 7.4(a), they regulate only in-person and telephone solicitation significantly motivated by a lawyer’s pecuniary gain. However, though the general prohibition on “solicitation” in Rule 7.4(a) contains this limitation, proposed Rule 7.4(b)(1) appears to apply to any written communication directly or indirectly sent to a prospective client by a lawyer or law firm “for the purpose of obtaining professional employment.” In order to make it clear that Rule 7.4(b) is not intended to apply to constitutionally-protected political activity, this clause should be modified by the same qualifying language that appears in Rule 7.4(a): “when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain.” Similarly, Rule 7.4(b)(2) can be read to require all written communications to prospective clients for the purpose of obtaining professional employment to meet the requirements of being labeled “ADVERTISEMENT” inside and out, and being filed with the State Bar. To illustrate the problem, proposed Rule 7.4(b) could be read to apply to the communication that was at issue in In re Primus. In that case, South Carolina disciplined a lawyer affiliated with the ACLU for writing to a woman who had been sterilized as a condition of continued receipt of Medicaid benefits, offering the ACLU’s representation of her in a suit for damages. The Court overturned the disciplinary action, holding that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as "a form of political expression" and "political association" constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection, as to which government may regulate only "with narrow specificity." It stated, at p. 434: “Where political expression or association is at issue, this Court has not tolerated the degree of imprecision that often characterizes government regulation of the conduct of commercial affairs. The approach we adopt today in Ohralik [v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978)], that the State may proscribe in-person solicitation for pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to result in adverse consequences, cannot be applied to appellant's activity on behalf of the ACLU. Although a showing of potential danger may suffice in the former context, appellant may not be disciplined unless her activity in fact involved the type of misconduct at which South Carolina's broad prohibition is said to be directed.” Proposed Rules 7.4(b) and 7.6(c) can be read to, among other things, subject communications like the letter sent by Ms. Primus to a 30-day waiting period, to require them to be labeled inside and out as “Advertisements,” and to require them to be filed with the State Bar Committee (along with a fee). These requirements would clearly burden and delay the exercise of protected political freedoms, and, by labeling the communication an “advertisement,” would impermissibly distort its content. A typical lay person receiving a communication labeled “Advertisement” would tend to believe, erroneously in this case, that the communication was motivated by the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. Some examples of communications to prospective clients, email lists, and organizations serving people with disabilities, that might fall within the scope of Rules 7.4 and 7.6 as written include: • a flyer distributed at a public festival asking persons in wheelchairs to contact the Advocacy Center if they had complaints about the physical accessibility of the venue; • an email announcement that the State of Louisiana was proposing to cut off Medicaid benefits to Katrina evacuees with disabilities in other States, expressing the opinion that this action would be illegal under federal law, and offering the Advocacy Center’s assistance to persons threatened with such a cutoff; • a letter sent to persons with mental disabilities for whom the Advocacy Center had reason to believe unauthorized claims for federal benefits had been filed; • An email announcement to listservs and organizations that assist individuals with disabilities advising them of procedures to be followed to avail themselves of rights achieved in the settlement of a class action brought by the Advocacy Center. None of these communications is actually misleading, overreaching, or exercises undue influence, yet they are all potentially within the scope of the requirements of Rules 7.4(b) or 7.6(c), and 7.7. The Advocacy Center therefore urges the Court to clarify that provisions of the proposed Rules that regulate communications that do not constitute actually misleading, overreaching, or unduly intrusive advertising, do not apply to communications by lawyers for non-profit organizations that are not motivated by pecuniary gain. Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rules. Nell Hahn Advocacy Center 600 Jefferson St., Suite 812 Lafayette, LA 70506 (337) 237-7380 ext. 11
 

11/23/2006
After practising for over 30 years and seeing the evolution of advertising by the Bar, I do believe that the new rules may be close to be silly over-reaching and attempting to control style, not to mention that they probably violate the federal first amendment and possibly the 14th. I have never advertised, except in the phone book. Most of the rules appear to be pointed to TV advertising. Who advertises a lot on TV...plaintiff trial or personal injury attorneys. Just to comment on some of the specific prohibitions: In the category of silly or style, no slogans; nicknames implying ability (what if your childhood nickname has a ring of ability to it); no jingles; and no full person photos or with law books in background. The serious ones deal with the prohibition of presentation of facts. We are supposed to deal in facts. If a judgment is part of the public record with no prohibition against non-public disclosure, then it is definitely a violation of free speach to prohibit attorneys from stating a fact or from a client who would say the same thing. We cannot show the public where we work? We cannot show a picture of us in a courtroom? The most egregious proposal is even though an attorney presents his advertisement to review committee and the review committee approves it, he can still be charges with an ethical violation. After review, there should be, at a minimum, a presumption of non-violation (like an administrative matter). In closing, without changes, they appear to be over-reaching for the whole of the bar and directed to a small segment of the bar...causing all to suffer (implying to the public that we all do or would attempt to do the same.) ECR 11199
 

11/22/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/22/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/21/2006
My written comments in support of Proposed Rules 7.2 and 7.5 have been submitted in the form of a letter to the Committee c/o Timothy Averill.
 

11/21/2006
Committees of the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana State Bar Association have proposed sweeping changes to the rules of professional conduct which govern lawyer advertising. In my view, in many instances, these changes are vulnerable to challenges based upon the commercial free speech protections granted by the First Amendment. One justification offered for these proposed rules is that they have been in effect in Florida and have withstood constitutional attack there. A more detailed review of the judicial treatment of the Florida rules, and others like them, does not support that contention. Recent amendments The Florida Supreme Court amended its rules this month and those amendments should be closely studied and considered in connection with these proposed rules. Judicial approval of Florida advertising rules The only Florida advertising rule considered and upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court (or any other federal court to my knowledge) was the one prohibiting personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 115 S.Ct. 2371, 132 L.Ed.2d 541 (1995). This prohibition has been in our advertising rules for several years. Absolute prohibition on endorsements and testimonials Absolute bans on commercial speech are particularly susceptible to a First Amendment attack. For example, in adopting new advertising rules in 1999, the Florida Supreme Court denied a request to institute a complete ban on radio and television advertising. See In re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Advertising Rules, 762 So.2d 392 (Dec. 17, 1999), at 397: We do not find United States Supreme Court support for a holding that television and radio advertising is, in and of itself, inherently misleading commercial speech that the government can "freely regulate" under Central Hudson. We find that Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 372, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977), holding in the context of newspaper advertising that "[w]e are not persuaded that restrained professional advertising by lawyers inevitably will be misleading," indicates to the contrary. We further note that in its 1999 term the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its strong adherence to Central Hudson in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 119 S.Ct. 1923, 144 L.Ed.2d 161 (1999). "[S]tate rules [on attorney advertising and solicitation] may be no broader than reasonably necessary to prevent the perceived evil." Florida Bar v. Herrick, 571 So.2d 1303, 1305 (Fla.1990) (citing In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982)), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1205, 111 S.Ct. 2798, 115 L.Ed.2d 972 (1991). Prophylactic prohibitions are by definition broad in nature and have been generally disfavored in the context of attorney advertising and solicitation. The Ohio Supreme Court froze the application of their anti-testimonial advertising rule after being sued in federal court for violation of the First Amendment. In re Enforcement of DR -101(A)(3), Ohio, Misc. Orders, 1/24/05, reported at 21 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 64: The court ordered disciplinary authorities in Ohio not to enforce any purported violation of the rule until further order of the court. In exchange, Ohio lawyer Bret A. Adams dropped his federal lawsuit challenging the rule on First Amendment grounds. Adams agreed to dismiss the suit—without giving up his right to refile it—in return for the court ’s agreement to halt enforcement of the rule (Adams v. Business First of Columbus Inc., S.D. Ohio, No. 2:04cv264, dismissed without prejudice 1/21/05). Although Adams's lawsuit ended without any ruling on the constitutionality of DR 2-101(A)(3), he and his counsel in the litigation, Joel Mirman, both told BNA that they view what emerged from it—the Ohio Supreme Court ’s order suspending enforcement of the disciplinary rule—as a victory for lawyers’ commercial free speech rights. . . . Professional conduct rules vary widely from state to state on the Issue of using client testimonials in lawyer advertising, according to Professor Louise Hill of Widener University law school in Delaware. Hill is the author of a treatise on lawyer advertising. “Anytime you have a total prohibition against advertising, it’s dangerous from a First Amendment perspective,” Hill told BNA. “So the tendency among the states will be to adopt narrower prohibitions and require disclaimers instead of outright bans.” The U. S. District Court in New Mexico allowed to stand a §1983 action against, inter alia, the New Mexico Supreme Court regarding advertising rules. Bell v. Legal Advertising Committee, 998 F.Supp. 1231 (N.M., 1998). The following excerpts from that opinion are instructive to the issue at hand: General Challenge to Ban on Testimonials and Endorsements Bell has raised a general attack on the advertising rules promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court, insofar as those rules impose an absolute ban on testimonials or endorsements in attorney advertisements. NMRA 1998, 16-701(A)(2). This is the type of claim that is recognized as clearly within this Court's jurisdiction. . . . On the merits, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Bell's attack on the absolute ban on testimonials and endorsements fails to state a claim. Absolute bans on various types of attorney advertising have not fared well in the United States Supreme Court or other appellate courts. Instead, the Supreme Court and other courts have tended to require evidence supporting an assertion that a particular type of advertising is inherently misleading or otherwise deserving of being banned. Id. pp. 1237 - 1238. [Citations omitted.] The district court went on to say: As to the general attack on the absolute ban on testimonials and endorsements, the Court notes that discovery has been stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. Therefore, no evidence has been submitted concerning the merits of the ban, which means the Court has no information about a crucial factor that must be considered in preliminary-injunction cases—the likelihood of eventual success on the merits. The discovery ban is therefore dissolved so that the parties may develop the factual predicate to present this issue to the Court. Id. at 1239. New Mexico’s rule on this subject now reads: Rule 16-701 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if: it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law; omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; or contains a testimonial about, or endorsement of, the lawyer that is misleading. Apparently, the general ban on testimonials and endorsements was removed. Yet it is proposed in Louisiana’s rules. See also Connecticut Informal Ethics Op. 01-07 (2001) (quotations from clients regarding lawyer’s personal qualities—such as being knowledgeable, patient, accommodating, and courteous—do not violate Rule 7.1, but statement comparing lawyer’s service with those of other lawyers does); and New Jersey Advertising Op. 15 (1993) (total ban on testimonials is unjustified; however, testimonial must be truthful statement about lawyer’s services, quoted by identifiable person who actually received lawyer’s services). Slogans Recently, in Florida Bar v. Gold, 937 So.2d 652 (Fla. 8/31/06), the Florida Supreme Court dismissed disciplinary charges against a lawyer who used on the outside of his targeted mail brochure, which identified sender as “The Ticket Clinic,” a picture of a stop sign and roadway, along with the words “Don't Just Roll Over Fight Back.” Illustrations or pictures The U. S. Supreme Court has held that the use of illustrations or pictures in lawyer advertisements is not inherently misleading. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court, 417 U.S. 626, 1 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 795 (1985). Lawyers may not be prohibited from using accurate and non-deceptive illustrations in their advertisements. The Ohio rule at issue prohibited the use of any illustrations other than a picture of the advertising lawyer or of the scales of justice. In this case, a lawyer advertising for clients who might have been injured by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device had included a line drawing of the device in the ad. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state's contention that its ban on illustrations sought to prevent the public from being subconsciously misled, manipulated, or confused. Ban on sounds The absolute ban on any noises except for "background music" also appears to be overly broad and not narrowly designed to prohibit false or deceptive advertising. The Supreme Court cannot legislate taste. I am very concerned that if the constitutional law on commercial free speech is not more carefully considered, that Louisiana will find itself fighting a very costly battle in federal court. Our state needs to use its resources to rebuild after Katrina and Rita, not on first amendment challenges.
 

11/21/2006
The rules appear to be unconstitutional in that there has been no showing by public comment that a significant state interest has been sufficiently impaired to justify the proposed limits on commercial free speech. A similar scheme proposed in New York was withdrawn because of serious concerns expressed by the Federal Trade Commission. The totality of the amendments seem to be anti consumer and anti competitive. There has been no member of the general public who has testified that they have been mislead by any ads. There has been no testimony by any member of the general public (or anyone else) that a significant state interest has been impaired by continuing to use the current rules. There has been no record created which would justify the proposed restrictions on constitutionally protected commercial free speech. There has been no showing that Disciplinary Counsel has attempted to prosecute any attorney for violating the existing advertising rules, but was unsuccessful because of the nature of the current rules. In short, the proposed amendments seem to be an attempt to appease certain members of the legislative branch of government at the expense of certain guaranteed constitutional rights to commercial free speech which inure to the benefit of the general public and attorneys. Implementation of these provisions seem guaranteed to result in a 1983 challenge in federal court. If that challenge is successful on any point a large attorney fee award in favor of the plaintiffs should be expected.
 

11/21/2006
I have reviewed the proposed rule changes and, though I am a lawyer, I find it mysical that it would take 23 pages to draft a reasonable rule on lawyer advertising. At first blush, anyway. Having read the rule changes, they are obviously overbroad, to wit Rule 7.2(b)2(b) "all visual or verbal descriptions, depictions, or portrayals of persons, things, or events shall not be deceptive, misleading, or manipulative.") The changes are also questionable in their aim to stymie deceptive advertising: what does a depiction of a courtroom have to do with misleading ads? how about using a nickname? or how does any other background noise other than instrumental music convey something deceptive about a lawyer's skills??? Finally, the rules, if adopted, do appear to infringe on First Amendment speech, fly in the face of the Supreme Court's decision on this matter, and harm both the modern day lawyer and the client seeking to find him/her.
 

11/21/2006
Caution on Websites: Any website whether it be a defense or plaintiff firm can be spidered by robots by large directories such as Google, MSN or Yahoo, thousands of other search engines, or small directories on small websites. These robots, spiders and software retrieve content, meta tags, links, the domain name, header tags and ANY info or word from your law firm websites. Thus, website owners have little or no control over the retrieval and use of links, select content, domain name which include links, or other. With that being said, there should be an exception in the advertising rules that allows links, descriptive content, & domain names, to exist on general websites that are NOT the lawyers primary firm website. The new proposed rules have little or no clarity for websites, web content, promotion of domains, contextual advertising such as PPC "Pay per click", or 3rd party use of non-copyrightable content snippets which include links and the descriptive domain name. Thanks for reading this and good luck in addressing this cutting edge issue that is becoming a much bigger challenge for website owners. Regards, Concerned Lawyer
 

11/21/2006
I am writing to express support for the proposed rules. I would suggest that you slightly modify them to include a prohibition of advertising which states or implies that a lawyer will personally handle a client's case unless that attorney expects to act as lead counsel on all matters of the type the advertisemetn is soliciting. Lawyer advertising should not work a disservice to the lay public, and these rules represent a reasonable effort to reduce the likelihood of that happening. I also would suggest that lawyer advertising should not include references to implied qualifications or experience which are not genuinely related to legal services or experience. For example, advertisements touting that an attorney has been seen on television should not be allowed if the context of the appearance was not as a lawyer. Advertising should not imply that the lawyer will see to the payment of damages or satisfaction of creditors in the absence of a recovery, nor imply that recovery is a simple, automatic, or rapid process.
 

11/21/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/21/2006
First off, I think the committee has done a hell of a job on the new proposed rules. There are two things I would like to discuss. First, requiring some kind of identification number on all advertising. The number would be assigned by the LSBA without charge and without opinion on the advertising. I would see this registration as including the elements of proposed Rule 7.2 (a)(1) and (2). The registration list would be available on the LSBA website. In this way, anyone looking at an advertisement could check to see if it is registered with LSBA or not. This would save a lot of needless telephone calls questioning what is going on with an advertisement. It would also require any attorney to at least register the ad . . . if not requesting a prior opinion. The registration would not be an unreasonable rule in as much as there would be no charge and it could propably be done by java script online 24 hours a day. It would also provide an easy way to identify ads in questions and complaints. It would also provide a tool to insure that every ad is considered. As Charlie said in the transcript, there are going to be some who want to push the envelope. I could expect to see some advertising where there is variation in ads that are considered by the person placing the ad as being "essentially" the same. In other words, different, but only if caught. Second, RULE 7.6 Computer-accessed communications. I think this needs a little work. The rule, more or less, considers the division of "push" vs "pull" technology, but I see some holes. On the pull side, there is no discussion of "links". Other rules prohibit the use of courtrooms and judges and famous people in advertising. What about links to those prohibited participants? Can a web page have links to the court websites? Or is that bringing the reputation of the court into the advertising? Can a web page have links to websites for candidates running for political office? Or does this seem to indicate that such judge, if elected, might have preference for such attorney? Can a webpage have links to home pages for famous people -- clients or not? Does that seem to indicate an endorsement by such person? What about links to music or other websites that might be considered a jingle or some other undo influence on the viewer. On the push side, can an attorney use "pop up" ads on a website-- their own or other's? Can an attorney use site switching so that the actual site to be viewed is not indicated to the unsuspecting viewer? Can an attorney send SPAM e-mails? Like the ones we all get for "tax help" from some group up in Seattle or someplace. If an attorney does send e-mail ads, can he use mail merge tools to make the e-mail look like he knows the recipient. Things like inserting street names and such in the middle of the e-mail. Can an attorney leave a cookie on the machine of a person who visits his website? Can an attorney search the cookies on the machine of a visitor to discover information about the visitor? Reading such cookies opens up a whole new world of altering an otherwise "pull" website into a java script driven "push" site that plays to the discovered facts about the visitor. Then there is the issue of depicting the attorney on the website. How wild can the pictures be? How personal can they be? Can an attorney display a picture with a famous person? Can the site have photographs of anyone other than attorneys associated with the firm? Can the website list names and telephone numbers of secretaries, clerks, or para-legals? I caught hell from the State Board of CPAs for listing the non-CPA members of my firm on the site -- even when I clearly marked that they were not CPAs. Can a law firm website show a firm member running for elected office or discuss such election? And finally, can the website use META tags to direct search engines to the site? If yes, what are the limitations, if any, on the META tags? Can an attorney pay a search engine to give the website preference in the results list? [I have my own opinions on each of these, and will gladly share them at your request. I probably have more experience with web sites than most of the members of the committee and offer my assistance in this area. I was a computer programmer before I became a CPA and long before PCs came into existence. I had a web site with several hundred linked pages until the State Board of CPAs got on my case and made me take it down.] - Michael
 

11/17/2006
Comments 1) - 3) address the following sections of Rule 7.2(a)(2), “Location of Practice”: “All advertisements and written communications provided for under these Rules shall disclose, by city or town, one or more bona fide office location(s) of the lawyer or lawyers who will actually perform the services advertised. If the office location is outside a city or town, the parish where the office is located must be disclosed. For the purposes of this Rule, a bona fide office is defined as a physical location maintained by the lawyer or law firm where the lawyer or law firm reasonably expects to furnish legal services in a substantial way on a regular and continuing basis, and which physical location shall have at least one lawyer who is regularly and routine present in that physical location.” 1) Attorney who works limited hours and alone: Please consider how a Rule that requires “a physical location … where the lawyer reasonably expects to furnish legal services in a substantial way on a regular and continuing basis, and which physical location shall have at least one lawyer who is regularly and routinely present in that physical location,” will affect an attorney who works a limited number of hours (on a part-time basis) and alone. 2) Attorney Safety: Please consider how this Rule will impact attorneys who, although having a physical address, choose not to divulge said address initially due to safety concerns. That is, the attorney works alone, preferring instead to initially communicate with potential clients through post office box, telephone, or email communications. The safety issue is particularly a consideration where the attorney’s physical address is also his/her residential address. 3) Increased Cost to Client: Please consider how this Rule will result in increased cost to the attorney and therefore potentially to the client as follows: a) Some aspects of legal work, such as immigration law, do not require any physical contact with the client, and therefore, advertisement of a full physical address, other than a city or town, post office box, telephone, or email communication, is an avoidable cost. b) Some attorneys work alone, without clerical support, and are not interested in expanding their business through walk-in traffic that will result in unnecessary work day interruptions and therefore increased cost. Comment 4) addresses the following section of Rule 7.2(a)(2): “If an advertisement or written communication lists a telephone number in connection with a specified geographic area other than an area containing a bona fide office, appropriate qualifying language must appear in the advertisement.” 4) Clarification: The statement quoted immediately above requires clarification. Particularly, what is “appropriate qualifying language”? Also, please consider increased advertising cost by the requirement of “appropriate qualifying language.”
 

11/15/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/14/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

11/14/2006
I have several problems with the new rules: 7.3(b)(2) “A lawyer shall not make statements describing or characterizing the quality of the lawyer’s services in advertisements and written communications.” This requirement would prohibit such statements as “Adams & Reece with over X,000 attorney’s nationwide has the manpower to handle all of your complex transactional needs.” 7.3(c)(4) “Shall disclose whether the client will be liable for any costs and/or expenses in addition to the fee.” This would seem to require disclosure of “if you are found liable you may be required to pay the judgment”, a pre-emptive breakdown of all fees charged (including copy and telephone costs) and would be a right headache if in the middle of litigation it was discovered that some obscure additional expense was needed (for example aerial photography of an accident scene). 7.3(c)(12)(A) this paragraph does not indicate that it is permissible to list only some of enumerated items. As a result an attorney’s business card now must list “the name of the lawyer or law firm, a listing of lawyers associated with the firm, office locations and parking arrangements, disability accommodations, telephone numbers, web site address . . .” While I have been told by a graphic artist that this may be possible on a business card the results are somewhat more artistic than the rules envision. 7.3(c)(12)(F) prepaid or group legal service plans in which the lawyer participates. Personally I think these should be banned as they make reference to fee provisions not contained in the ad. 7.3(c)(12)(J) These limitations can best be described as silly. For example an attorney who’s office is located in a landmark building could not be shown in front of it. A disabled attorney in a wheelchair may not be shown in his or her wheelchair (torso up only), an attorney making use of a sign language interpreter could not be shown with the interpreter. In short this paragraph has first amended litigation written all over it. (I should also note that Lady Justice in front of the Old Bailey in London, one of the most traditional images, is NOT blind). 7.4(b)(1)(E) “The lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional, or mental state of the person makes it unlikely that the person would exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer.” This would seem to include the sending of letters to potential corporate clients who have been subject to large verdicts offering to replace prior counsel on appeal. Such a restriction may or may not be a bad thing. . . 7.4(b)(1)(F) “Any written communication prompted by a specific occurrence involving or affecting the intended recipient of the communication or a family member shall disclose how the lawyer obtained the information prompting the communication.” This requirement gives rise to numerous attorney client privilege issues. One example that comes to mind would be the contacting, on behalf of a current client, other potential plaintiffs in a peditory action where said plaintiffs were located through the attorneys abstract of title. As proof of title is required to prevail in the peditory action the attorneys research into title (i.e. the abstract and notes) would clearly be considered work product. 7.5(b)(1)(C) “any spokesperson’s voice or image that is recognizable to the public in the community where the advertisement appears.” In much of rural Louisiana this includes the attorney! 7.6(c) “(1) the requirements of subdivisions (b)(1),(b)(2)(A),(b)(2)(C),(b)(2)(D),(b)(2)(E),(b)(2)(F) and (b)(2)(G) of Rule 7.4 are met;” Robert Livingston is turning in his grave at the thought that any Louisiana attorney would suggest a provision made up completely of alpha numeric references. 7.7 (c) “any lawyer who advertises through . . . written communications [would be required to file a copy of the communications with the bar]”. This paragraph would require that a communication sent to a party that may be a current client be made a matter of public record. In short these rules need much redrafting before becoming acceptable.
 

11/12/2006
November 12, 2006 The unmerciful bashing of lawyers, the law profession, and the bar in general in recent years can not be attributed entirely to the unfortunaste relaxation of lawyer advertising, but most certainly this has played a part. The proposed advertising and solicitation rules are an important step in the right direction and the adoption of no less stringent rules is strongly supported.
 

11/10/2006
The new Rule 7.1 - 7.10 are overdue and strike a proper balance between the need for professional dignity and the 1st Amendment.
 

11/10/2006
Lawyers should be prohibited from advertising that a client received a specific sum of money as a result of representing the client. Specifying a dollar cheapens the profession. It makes lawyers look bad. It is ridiculous when a person says he/she got thousands or millions or dollars and they appear uninjured. The ads should simply say my lawyer got me the money I was entitled to and I am happy.
 

11/9/2006
I welcome the change in the proposed rules. I think that the "testimonials" by paid actors and the references made to large judgments is misleading and intentionally designed to give false impressions to the unsuspecting. This type of advertising has fostered frivilous litigation in our state and relegated the profession to ambulance chasing.
 

11/7/2006
I am an advertiser of bankruptcy legal services in the Monroe area. I agree that there must be new rules that prohibit lawyers from promising the public a specific result, or pretending to be a lawyer in the local community, when in fact the lawyer is not from the local community. I hope that you keep in mind that marketing is crucial in bankruptcy law, due to tremendous misinformation from bill collectors. Debtors are being told that bankruptcy doesn't exist anymore, which is not the case. Bill collectors in effect are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The legal profession needs to make sure that they, and not the non-attorneys (and this includes big corporations, insurance companies, the social security office, collection agencies, the clerks of court, etc.) can provide legal information for the benefit of the client. I am against rules that prohibit the content of legitimate marketing to the public. The legal profession must have the ability to inform the public, and to create non-deceptive advertisements, that can draw the attention of the public. I hope that you keep in mind that marketing draws the public to the legal profession. Think of how many people take no legal action, due to ignorance of the law, or proceed without legal representation. This is true in all areas of the law. In the attempt to curtain deceptive advertising of personal injury attorneys, I fear that you will snare attorneys with legitimate, non-deceptive advertising, such as bankruptcy attorneys, who need to inform the public of the alternatives of the bill collector demands. The changes to the rule of ethics should constrain the deceptive advertising; but it should not limit the attorney's attempt to market his services and inform the public of what he can do for it. I have reviewed in detail the proposed rules. I support most of the rules, but I am strongly against the prohibition of testimonials. Marketing in all commercial areas use testimonials. A blanket prohibition against testimonials damages the public's ability to understand and comprehend the message. Absolutely, we should ban misleading testimonials, but not all testimonials. At the very least, allow actual clients to tell the public of the service a lawyer can for them. My second complaint is limiting background sound to "instrumental music". Why? This makes very little sense - as long as the attorney does not attempt to deceive the public, it shouldnt matter the sound of the background. My last complaint concerns the mandated phrase on print ads, like a scarlet letter. The phrase clearly takes away from the message of the attorney, and demeans the messenger. The legal profession has fought for free speech since the beginning. We built the Bill of Rights. We shouldnt silence our own, with the exception of the deceptive and misleading advertisements that hurt our profession. Sam Henry IV
 

11/4/2006
Proposed Rule 7.2(c)(12)(I) misues the word "salutary," in my opinion. "Salutary" means "benefitting one's health." It has nothing to do with a salutation; although both words do share the same latin origin.
 

11/2/2006
I do not agree with the provision that says that if a lawyer takes the time to submit his/her proposed advertisement to the Bar Committee to review at least 30 days prior to the publication of the same, and then the committee approves the said publication, the lawyer is not insulated from any disciplinary board actions, but the Board's approval can be used in evidence. What more can a lawyer do? This is unfair!
 

11/2/2006
The proposed rules are unneccesary. The current rules are sufficient and cover all goals that are trying to be acheived with the proposed rules. Some of the proposed rules would appear to violate the free speech clause due to their restrictiveness and wording. Tim Young New orleans, La.
 

11/2/2006
Bar any reference to "amounts recovered" in any advertisements If any reference is made to contingent fee amaount of such fee must alsobe given
 

11/1/2006
View this comment in PDF format.
 

10/27/2006
Nowhere do I find the committee members listed. why is that and where can I obtain this data? gordon hackman
 

10/26/2006
Eliminate reference to amounts recovered
 

10/26/2006
Television advertising and telephone book yellow page advertising have significantly undermined the credibility of our profession and negatively impacted professionalism in our community. It is the embarrassing truth in lawyer jokes that makes them funny. Integrity of the legal profession must be the foundation of the peoples faith in the judicial system.I believe as a direct result of advertising, this integrity has been eroded and along with it, the peoples faith in the judicial system The fierce competition to devise the winning gimmick to attract clients encourages litigation and raises false expectations that some poor soul has won the lottery because he had a fender bender, or lost an arm or perhaps a child, in an accident. Amendments to Rule 7.1 et. seq., if soliciting is to continue to be allowed, could begin by addressing the practice of airing testimonials where clients describe how much $$$$ their particular Clarence Darrow "got" for them. Thank you for addressing this cancer on the profession. Gary M. Parker, Bar #10319 J.D. LSU, 1981
 

10/26/2006
It's about time. I support the proposed new rules.
 

10/26/2006
AMEN!!!! One of my biggest jobs, headaches and frustrations is educating clients that what they see on tv commercials is extremely misleading and confusing. Many clients after seing these tv commercials have very unrealistic expecatations. Great job!!!
 

10/26/2006
The proposed revision regarding Lawyer Advertising, i.e., "evaluation by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee of nearly all advertisements for compliance with the Rules governing lawyer advertising and solicitation, and provides for optional advance written advisory opinions concerning compliance," smacks of regulatory overkill. It basically substitutes the judgement of a committee of attorneys for that of (an)other licensed attorney(s), who has/have or should have access to resources that would allow him/her to make a reasonable decision within the rules. We should trust the marketplace, the good citizens of Louisiana, to make reasoned choices about the face of their legal representation.
 

10/26/2006
Where is the proposed rule that you are asking us to comment upon? I could not find it at this site. The one aspect of legal ads I find most insulting are those that appear to indicate healthy uninjured people get these big recoveries. However, I wonder how you will be able to review every ad without it being considered an impingement on free speech.
 

10/26/2006
interested, since I am a displaced attorney from New Orleans to Lake Charles, Louisiana. If you need someone in Lake Charles to assist the program, let me know. Jenn
 

10/25/2006
I recently saw an ad at a bus stop on Metairie Road where the law firm touted "winning" and "millions won". Hopefully these types of ads can be curtailed or changed to reflect an award rather than a win. After all, a lawsuit is not the lottery. The firm is Alvendia, Kelly & Demerest.
 

10/25/2006
I will send my comments when I read the proposed rules. I will be out of town on the day of the hearing in Shreveport. When I started practicing law in the early 1960s, there was no lawyer advertising or solicitation as such. I have watched it grow and have participated in it. On the whole, I do not think either I or my clients have benefited from the change. I applaude any effort by my fellow attorneys to make our attempts at regulation of our conduct of greater benefit to us and our clients. I look forward to reading the proposed new rule and commenting. Wellborn Jack, Jr. Wellborn
 

10/25/2006
Excellent proposals. It is high time a sense of professionalism was brought to lawyer advertising. Right now there is a lawyer in Baton Rouge who advertises with a picture of hiself holding money and says "Crash Cash". Go get um.
 

10/25/2006
Although I practice plaintiff personal injury work, I do not agree with the advertising philosophy of many plaintiff lawyers. Any responsible bar association would prohibit attorneys from getting on TV commercials with clients or people posing as clients to say: "If you were in an accident I can get you money. Call me." That type of representation is misleading, unprofessional and lowers the standards of practice of attorneys. The rules should be changed to stop those attorneys who do that. Any amendments which do not address this issue are worthless. If you make a change, make a change where it counts. Additionally, I understand that at least one lawyer who runs these TV commercials is on the advertising committee, what kind of conflict is that.