FREQUENTLY UPDATED

• Differences between State Advertising and Solicitation Rules and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(Updated March 5, 2012)

PENDING CASES

• Complaint in Rothman v. The Florida Bar. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against enforcement of the rules that prohibit statements about testimonials, past successes, and quality of services, and a declaration that these rules violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (April 1, 2009)
• Briefs in Alexander v. Cahill (Jan. 22, 2009 Hearing in 2nd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals)
• Public Citizen, Inc. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Suit challenges the constitutionality of amendments to the lawyer advertising provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct that become effective December 1, 2008

• •   Motion for Summary Judgment (Filed July 15, 2009)

  •   Order and Reasons (August 3, 2009)

  •   Judgment (August 19, 2009)

• Complaint in Harrell v. The Florida Bar (Jan. 7, 2008). Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-15-J-33TEM. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that portions of the Florida advertising rules violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and an injunction against enforcement of those rules. (Updated January 1, 2008)
• Other documents related to the Harrell v. The Florida Bar case
• Report of Special Master in In re: Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising (New Jersey) (June 18, 2008)
  

  COURT RULINGS

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that part of the New York rule regarding disclaimers for specialization certification violates the First Amendment. (March 5, 2012)
• Harrell v. Florida Bar - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the plaintiff law firm may continue with some of its claims challenging the constitutionality of provisions in Florida's lawyer advertising rules. No. 09-11910, (June 17, 2010)
• Florida Supreme Court declines to adopt the proposed amendments to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.6 (Feb. 27, 2009)
• Some New Lawyer Advertising Rules in New York Violate Free Speech, Federal Court Rules (July 23, 2007)
• U.S. Court of Appeals affirms most of District Court’s decision (March 12, 2010)
• U. S. District Court grants motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff’s claim that the Avvo lawyer rating system is inaccurate and misleading is barred by the First Amendment. (Dec. 18, 2007)
  

  PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

  • New Jersey Supreme Court Professional Responsibility Rules Committee – Report on Referral from the Court on Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising – Publication for Comment

  • The Virginia State Bar Council sent a proposed amendment to Rule 7.4 regarding communications about certification as a specialist to the Supreme Court of Virginia for approval. (Feb. 28, 2009)

  • A Georgia Senate bill proposes to regulate attorney television advertising and certain aspects of attorney-client relationships created as a result of television advertising. (January 26, 2009)

  • The Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted changes to the Rules on Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (Adopted June 26, 2008 – Effective date postponed to October 1, 2009)

  • New Jersey State Senate Judiciary Committee receives for consideration a proposed Act making it a crime for an attorney to send any written communication soliciting professional employment on the attorney’s own behalf to any person whose name, address or other personal information was obtained from a public record such as a police report, accident report or court record. (January 29, 2007)

  • Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct of The State Bar of California by the State Bar’s Special Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct (June 2006) (See Rules 7.1-7.5)

  
  REPORTS

  • Report of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Task Force on Lawyer Advertising (May 2007)

  • Kentucky Bar Association Attorneys' Advertising Commission Ethics 2000 Committee Report (November 17, 2006)

  • Report of the Special Committee on Lawyer Advertising of the Indiana State Bar Association (June 30, 2006)

  
  ETHICS OPINIONS

  • Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion (February 23, 2009)
  Testimonials or dramatizations may be false or misleading is there is substantial likelihood that a reasonable person will reach a conclusion for which there is no factual foundation or will form an unjustified expectation. The inclusion of appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may prevent testimonials or dramatizations from being false or misleading.