Florida Bar Website Comment - FINAL 32160275 1

Description

IN THESUPREME COURT OF FLORIDACase No. SC10-1014In Re: The Florida Bar’s Petition to Amend Rules Regulating The Florida Bar– Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications_________________________________________________________Comment of Eight Law FirmsBilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,Carlton Fields, P.A., Foley & Lardner LLP, Jorden Burt LLP,Holland & Knight LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP,Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, and White & Case LLP_________________________________________________________Thomas R. Julin Richard J. Ovelmen Douglas M. Halsey & Jamie Z. Isani FL Bar No. 284904 & Raoul G. Cantero Hunton & Williams LLP Jorden Burt LLP FL Bar Nos. 288586 & 552356FL Bar Nos. 325376 & 728861 777 Brickell Avenue - Ste. 500 White & Case LLP1111 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2500 Miami, FL 33131-2803 200 South Biscayne Blvd.Miami, FL 33131 [phone] Fax [phone] Miami, FL 33131-2352(305) 810-2516 Fax 1601 [e-mail] [phone] Fax [e-mail] [e-mail] T. Baxa Jr. L. Kinder Cannon III FL Bar No. 313378 Peter J. WindersFL Bar No. 100578 Foley & Lardner LLP FL Bar No. 088860Holland & Knight LLP 111 N. Orange Ave. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard,50 North Laura St., Ste. 3900 Ste. 1800 Ste. 1000Jacksonville, FL 32202 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Tampa, FL 33607-5780 [phone] Fax [phone] [phone] Fax [phone] [phone] Fax [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] ...

Informations

• Publié par: Ermey
• Nombre de lectures: 13
• Langue: English

Extrait

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC10-1014

In Re: The Florida Bar’s Petition to Amend Rules Regulating The Florida Bar– Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications _________________________________________________________ Comment of Eight Law Firms Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Carlton Fields, P.A., Foley & Lardner LLP, Jorden Burt LLP, Holland & Knight LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, and White & Case LLP _________________________________________________________

Thomas R. Julin Richard J. Ovelmen Douglas M. Halsey  & Jamie Z. Isani FL Bar No. 284904 & Raoul G. Cantero Hunton & Williams LLP Jorden Burt LLP FL Bar Nos. 288586 & 552356 FL Bar Nos. 325376 & 728861 777 Brickell Avenue - Ste. 500 White & Case LLP 1111 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2500 Miami, FL 33131-2803 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 [phone] Fax [phone] Miami, FL 33131-2352 [phone] Fax 1601 [e-mail] [phone] Fax [phone] [e-mail] Edmund T. Baxa Jr [e-mail] . L. Kinder Cannon III FL Bar No. 313378 Peter J. Winders FL Bar No. 100578 Foley & Lardner LLP FL Bar No. 088860 Holland & Knight LLP 111 N. Orange Ave. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, 50 North Laura St., Ste. 3900 Ste. 1800 Ste. 1000 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Tampa, FL 33607-5780 [phone] Fax [phone] [phone] Fax [phone] [phone] Fax 4133 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Charles D. Tobin  Edward Soto David W. Trench FL Bar No. 0816345  FL Bar Nos. 265144 FL Bar. No. 202975 Holland & Knight LLP  Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & 2099 Penn. Ave., N.W.  Espirito Santo Plaza, Ste. 1200 Axelrod LLP Ste. 100  1395 Brickell Avenue 200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 2500 Washington DC 20006  Miami, FL 33131 Miami, Florida 331315340 [phone] Fax [phone]  [phone] Fax [phone] Fax [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Case No. SC10-1014

TABLEÿOFÿAUTHORITIES.................................................................................iv

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS ........................................................ 9

Interest of the Commenters ........................................................................... 9

Foley Lardner LLP ....................................................................................... 9

Holland & Knight LLP ............................................................................... 11

Hunton & Williams LLP ............................................................................ 12

Carlton Fields P.A. ..................................................................................... 15

The General Harm that Would Be Caused by Applying the Advertising Rules to Attorney Websites................................ 19

The Disclosures Or Disclaimers Will Create, Not Solve, Constitutional Problems.............................................................................. 21

Procedural Background .............................................................................. 27

OUR COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 30

I.

Applicable First Amendment Principles ..................................................... 30

A. Distinguishing Noncommercial & Commercial Speech .................... 31

B. Content-Based Speech Restrictions of Noncommercial Speech................................................................ 32

C.Central Hudson 35& its Progeny..........................................................

D.Zauderer& Disclosure Principles..................................................... 41

E. Vagueness & Overbreadth ................................................................ 42

H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP

II.

Case No. SC10-1014

Applying The Advertising Rules To Attorney Websites Would Violate the First Amendment ........................................... 44

A

B.

C.

Attorney Websites are Permeated with Noncommercial Speech ............................................................ 44

The Rules Would Fail Strict Scrutiny ............................................... 45

The Rules Would Fail Intermediate Scrutiny .................................... 46

1.

2.

3.

The Rules Apply to Truthful, Nonmisleading Information on Websites ................................ 46

Protecting Consumers is an Important Government Interest ............................................... 48

Application of Advertising Rules to Web Sites Does Not Directly or Materially Advance Substantial or Important Government Interests ....................... 48

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

“Past successes or results obtained.” Rule 4-7.2(c)(1)(F) ....................................................... 49

Comparisons of a lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, “unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.” Rule 4-7.2(c)(1)(I) ............ 49

Testimonials. Rule 4-7.2(c)(1)(J) ................................. 50

Statements “Describing or Characterizing the Quality of the Lawyer’s Services,” or Calling the Lawyer “An Expert.” Rules 4-7.2(C)(2) & (C)(6)......... 51

Illustrations or Other “Portrayals of Persons, Things, or Events that are Deceptive, Misleading, Manipulative, or Likely to Confuse the Viewer.” Rule 4-7.2(C)(3). .......................................................... 51

ii H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

4. Application of Advertising Rules to Websites is not Properly Tailored to Achieve the Court’s Objectives .......................................... 55

D. The Rules Would Suffer from Vagueness & Overbreadth ................ 56

E. Disclosures & Disclaimers Cannot Solve the Problems .................... 59

1. Click-to-Accept Disclaimers are Not a Solution................................................................... 60

2. The Proposed Disclaimers are an Impermissible Barrier ............................................................. 61

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 62

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 65

iii H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case No. SC10-1014

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996) ........................................................................................ 38

Alexander v. Cahill, 598 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................ 39, 44, 51, 52

In re: Amendment to the Rules Regulating The Fla. Bar -- Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications, Number SC08-1181, 34 Fla. L. Weekly S627 (Fla. Feb. 27, 2009) ................................................... 28

In Re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar—Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications, 24 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2009) .......................................................................... 28, 62

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Dean, 202 F. Supp. 2d 300 (D. Vt. 2002) ,aff’d in part and modified in part, 342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................... 30

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 30, 31

Ashcroft v. America Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) ........................................................................................ 34

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) ........................................................................................ 43

In re Bates, 555 P.2d 640 (1976) .......................................................................................... 2

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) ...............................................................2, 3, 34, 36, 48, 50

Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) .......................................................................................... 3

iv H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) ........................................................................................ 41

Board of Trustees, State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) ........................................................................................ 32

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Association, 442 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 33

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................................................ 32

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) ........................................................................................ 36

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) .................................................................35, 36, 37, 38, 40

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)....................................................................................... 58

City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) ........................................................................................ 31

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) .......................................................................................... 33

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 530 (1980) ........................................................................................ 34

Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1851) .......................................................................................... 30

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) ...................................................................... 35, 36, 37, 39

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) ........................................................................................ 34 v H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

Florida Bar v. Herrick, 571 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1990) .............................................................................. 5

Florida Bar v. Pape, 918 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2005) ................................................................................ 5

Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995) ...................................................................5, 35, 36, 39, 48

Florida Bar re Amendment to the Florida Bar Code, 380 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1980) ................................................................................ 3

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) ...................................................................................... 42

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ........................................................................................ 42

Harrell v. The Fla. Bar, 608 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) ...................................... 8, 35, 36, 42, 43, 56, 57

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) ........................................................................................ 42

ISKCON v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1979) ........................................................................... 57

Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business & Prof. Reg., Board of Accountancy, 512 U.S. 136 (1994) ..................................................................... 39, 40, 41, 48

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977) .............................................................................. 34, 48, 51

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) ........................................................................................ 41

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1324 (2010)..................................................................................... 41 vi H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ........................................................................................ 32

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978) .................................................................................... 3, 48

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) ........................................................................................ 31

In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978) .......................................................................................... 3

R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ........................................................................................ 32

In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982) .................................................................................. 38, 39

Reno v. America Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) ............................................................................ 33, 42, 43

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995) .................................................................................. 37, 38

Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) ........................................................................................ 33

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988) ........................................................................................ 49

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991) ........................................................................................ 34

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958) ........................................................................................ 33

Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) ........................................................................................ 56

vii H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

The Florida Bar v. Schrieber, 407 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1981),vacated,420 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1982)....................... 5

Thompson v. W. States Medical Ctr., 535 U.S. 357 (2002) ........................................................................................ 35

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) .......................................................................................... 43

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976) .............................................................................. 3, 31, 37

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) ............................................................................ 32, 33, 34

United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (2008) .......................................................................................... 42

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) ........................................................................................ 56

Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) ........................................................................................ 41

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) .................................................................39, 40, 41, 53, 54

viii H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP

Case No. SC10-1014

INTRODUCTION Thirty-eight years ago John R. Bates and Van O’Steen graduated from law school. They joined the Maricopa County Legal Aid Society. After two years, they opened their own private “legal clinic” in Phoenix that would offer legal services at modest prices. When the clinic failed to attract enough interest by word of mouth to keep the lawyers in business, they placed the following ad in the Arizona Republic:

The ad violated a lawyer disciplinary rule which stated, in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not publicize himself . . . as a lawyer through newspaper or magazine advertisements, radio or television announcements, display advertisements in the city or telephone directories or other means of commercial publicity.” Disciplinary Rule 2-101(b), incorporated in Rule 29(a) of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 17A Ariz. Rev. Stat. at 26 (Supp. 1976). Florida had the same disciplinary rule in place. D.R. 2-101(b), Fla. Code of Prof. Resp. (1976).

EYOL /FLP ÿ L HTIG K N & ÿDNALLO H/PLL ÿTRNÿ B UORDE LP/J MSÿ L LLAI & ÿI W TNNOU H ESÿ LLP/C ARLTONÿ F EIDLÿS B/ LIIZÿNU S L Aÿ & NERD LL Rÿ W E P/ G, LIHSTO & ÿLAGNA M ÿ &C AHITE LP SEÿ LB AGÿERMBIC P RAÿENRLEX A& ÿE W/PLL ÿDO

Case No. SC10-1014

At the conclusion of disciplinary hearings, the Arizona Supreme Court

suspended Bates and O’Steen for one week each.In re Bates,555 P.2d 640

(1976). The United States Supreme Court then vacated the suspensions inBates v.

State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), opening for the first time the mass

media for lawyer advertising. Although the ruling favored Bates and O’Steen, the

Supreme Court noted that there was some merit to the argument that advertising

“does not provide a complete foundation on which to select an attorney.” 1 ÿ Id.at

374. The Court added that we “do not hold that advertising by attorneys may not

be regulated in any way” and then delineated some of the “clearly permissible

limitations.”Id.at 382. These included prohibitions on false, deceptive, and

misleading ads. The Justices noted that claims as to the quality of services were

not generally susceptible to measurement or verification and that regulation might

be justified “because the public lacks sophistication concerning legal services,” but

did not decide whether a broad restraint against such claims could itself survive

First Amendment scrutiny.Id. It also suggested that warnings orat 383.

ÿÿ 1 The Court found the argument flawed, however, because it assumed that the public was “not sophisticated enough to realize the limitations of advertising, and that the public is better kept in ignorance than trusted with correct but incomplete information.”Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 374 (1977). This unconstitutionally paternalistic argument, the Court noted, “rests on an underestimation of the public” and held “dubious any justification that is based on the benefits of public ignorance.”Id.at 375.

2 H UNTON & W ILLIAMS LLP / J ORDEN B URT LLP / H OLLAND & K NIGHT LLP / F OLEY & L ARDNER LLP / W EIL , G OTSHAL & M ANGES LLP / C ARLTON F IELDS / B ILZIN S UMBERG B AENA P RICE & A XELROD LLP / W HITE & C ASE LLP