Supreme Court Upholds "Pit Bull Lawyers" Ad Ban
By Matt Rosenberg Posted in Law — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm disappointed in my U.S. Supremes. Reuters reports that today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld without comment a Florida Supreme Court ruling barring two Fort Lauderdale ambulance chasers (er, personal injury attorneys) from advertising themselves as akin to pit bulls. A TV ad showed a spike-collared pit bull with their firm's logo, and displayed the telephone number 1-800-PIT-BULL.
The Florida high court must have felt the connection was demeaning to pit bulls (LOL). Actually:
The Florida Supreme Court ruled last year that the advertisements "demean all lawyers and thereby harm both the legal profession and the public's trust and confidence in our system of justice." It said the appropriate sanctions for attorneys John Robert Pape and Marc Andrew Chandler were public reprimands and required attendance at an advertising workshop.
A court-ordered advertising workshop? Grounds for reversal right there, I'd say.
They appealed to the Supreme Court. Rodney Smolla, the University of Richmond law school dean, acknowledged in the appeal that "a conflict over whether a lawyer may use the image of a pit bull to advertise might at first seem trifling." But the law professor, an expert on the First Amendment, told the justices that the state's ban on such advertising involved substantial constitutional, free-speech issues. "It may well be that many American lawyers, including members of the court, would not choose to present themselves to consumers by conjuring an association with pit bulls," Smolla wrote. "But under our First Amendment principles," he added, "we assign the management of good taste to the forces of the marketplace, not the forces of government."
I'll say. Besides, don't the judges understand? Pit-bull lawyers aren't inherently malevolent. There are good pit bull lawyers and bad pit bull lawyers. It all depends on their breeding, training and environment.
But the slippery slope argument of the Florida Bar apparently had staying power.
"If the Bar allows lawyers to use pit bulls, what...next: sharks and alligators?" asked Barry Richard, the Tallahassee lawyer that represented the Bar.
I guess this means that attorneys can't bill themselves as rabid ferrets, either.
As for Pape and Chandler, their Web site shows a phone number of 1-800-748-2855. Which, if you want to pull out your Nokia for a hot minute, you'll see still spells..........
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Immigration and sovereignty. — Comments (30) »
Supreme Court Upholds "Pit Bull Lawyers" Ad Ban 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I seem to recall that law firms were barred from television advertisments until a few years ago.
Under the pretense that lawyers are not a service one should be advertising in good taste.
This advertisement seems to have crossed the line of good taste and professionalism in the field.
If I go with your first admentment arguement, cigarettes should not be barred from television advertising either. But they are, and because like most folks, you don't smoke and hate cigarettes there is no offense taken.
two lawyers wearing pit bull costumes while driving a van that follows an ambulance to a hospital?
John Roberts said that he was going to add more cases to the docket.
This would've been a good case to add.
The legal profession is, traditionally, given broad discretion in policing itself, and that discretion is usually granted a fair amount of deference, for a host of very good reasons.
A court-ordered advertising workshop? Grounds for reversal right there, I'd say.
This is the really bad news: We do this all the time. Seriously. Indeed, court-ordered behavior as a condition of retaining one's license is about as old as the American Bar itself.
I'll say. Besides, don't the judges understand? Pit-bull lawyers aren't inherently malevolent. There are good pit bull lawyers and bad pit bull lawyers.
One of the hardest things with which lawyers must deal is our Profession's self-inflicted wounds -- the perception that we're so many amoral, ambulance chasing, greedy, vicious attack dogs is among those, and for very good reason. I'm aware this is funny and everything, but as a member of The Florida Bar, and given the way far too many lawyers practice in this State, I'd just as soon that these lawyers were hung by their thumbs for a few hours and beaten.
The idea that the Supreme Court of a State cannot subtantially regulate the commercial speech of its Bar is absurd.
As for Pape and Chandler, their Web site shows a phone number of 1-800-748-2855. Which, if you want to pull out your Nokia for a hot minute, you'll see still spells..........
The Bar is aware of this.
Thomas and I completely agree on something. I'm going to a window and checking for swarms of locusts.
There is a free speech issue here. If some podunk no-nothing ambulance chaser wants to play the fool, then let him.
But I, for one, would never ever retain a lawyer who advertisers on TV (same with doctors). There's something.....dirty about it.
One interesting point is this: if the firm in question specialized in, say, dog bite cases, or pet law, then their advertising tactics would probably be OK.
The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is unsurprising,t hough, given that they have previously allowed bans on imagery such as clenched fists (which could be used as a symbol of, say, resistance to tyranny).
Pape & Chandler are clearly trying to project a "we'll break your kneecaps" image, given the picture on their website featuring two men, presumably the lawyers themselves, posing with a motorcycle, wearing jeans, t-shirts, and shades. And, oh, yeah, flexing.
I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, and I think these guys should be allowed to make fools of themselves if they choose, but I'm not surprised the courts won't let them.
There are some things that need to trump others. This is one instance where I think SCOFLA missed the boat by a few hours and several miles at the very least.
Yes, I can understand how other lawyers might be scandalized at the antics of these guys. But at the same time, we trample on free speech at our peril. It can be very inconvenient at times, but we need to be very careful when such things happen.
We regulate commercial speech ALL THE TIME.
But at the same time, we trample on free speech at our peril. It can be very inconvenient at times, but we need to be very careful when such things happen.
The First Amendment is aimed at protecting political speech. It's not an absolute right codified; it's a right that's subject to only extremely important counterweight in the political context.
Commercial advertising enjoys, with good reason, much less protection. Hence, when my kids watch Kids Next Door, MillerTime isn't part of the commercial lineup.
This advertisement seems to have crossed the line of good taste and professionalism in the field.
Where was this ad? On a sign on the summit of K2?
is that you relate the law profession with 'good taste' and 'professionalism'.
Sorry, I couldn't resist a lawyer joke.
A court-ordered advertising workshop? Grounds for reversal right there, I'd say.
That's probably pretty standard remedial fare, I'd imagine. It's been a while since I took professional responsibility class, but I remember constantly reading cases from Florida. Yall must have the best zany TV ads in the country.