An Ethics Decision for the Dogs
David Giacalone of f/k/ahas this post about the recent Florida Supreme Court decision in the 1-800 PIT BULL case (we noted the matter earlier here). The court ruled that a Florida law firm's use of the phone number 1-800-PIT-BULL and a logo depicting a pit bull in a spiked collar violates Florida ethics rules - and issued a public reprimand against the firm. David wonders why the bar needs to regulate these types of ads and can't trust consumers to make their own judgments about them. David's post also lengthy excerpts from the ludicrous decision which, among other things, ponders such weighty questions as whether use of the pit bull logo demeans all lawyers or is deceptive (because it's not possible to evaluate whether the firm actually conducts itself as a pit bull would in representation of clents) and whether the logo of the pit bull in the spiked collar reflects the dog's role as "man's best friend." (the court concluded that it did not).
WHICH OF THESE DOGS IS DECEPTIVE OR DEMEANING?
So now I can only wonder whether the Massachusetts or California
bars are going to pick up on the Florida court's decision and go after
biglaw firm Bingham McCutcheon
which
also uses a dog in its ad (below), with the slogan "Hairiest deals
turned best in show" (whatever that means). Isn't use of this dog
demeaning to the profession - after all, it's only wearing a turtleneck
and not a suit and tie? And isn't the ad deceptive - after all, is it
possible to determine whether Bingham conducts its deals with the same
effectiveness of a dog trainer, who turns a hairy dog into a champ?
And what about Georgetown Law School - can it still use a bull dog as a
logo? Or are bull dogs and pit bulls different enough breed?
Obviously, I don't expect that anyone will ever go after Bingham and law schools can probably use any logos they want. But my point is, does the Florida Bar really want to go down this road? Does it want to engage in an analysis of dog breeds, not to mention the characteristics of other animals any time a lawyer uses one in an ad? What a silly decision.
Agreed. The decision is an embarrassment to Florida lawyers. If its authors were smart enough to see their own stupidity--alas, they are not--they'd be ashamed.
Here is a link to The Florida Bar's initial brief:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2004/1-200/04-40_ini.pdf
In its failed effort to meet its burden, the Bar hung its entire case on a Dade County ordinance prohibiting pit bull
ownership in Dade County; a videotape of Respondentsâ?? television commercials;
and the conjecture of Bar counsel.
A naked offer into evidence of an ordinance that has nothing to do with this case even when paired with a cornucopia of speculation from counsel did not amount to clear andconvincing evidence of a violation of either Rule 4-7.2(b)(3) or Rule 4-7.2(b)(4). Quite simply, the Bar offered no surveys, testimony, discovery responses or
evidence of any sort to support its speculation. It merely chose to speculate.
The bar is simply afraid, provincial and focused on protecting the status quo. They fail to realize that advertising creates expectations. Expectations raise the performance bar. Raising expectations is good for legal consumers.
Carolyn,
As you know from my post, I disagree with you on this one. I think the Florida Bar has an obligation to protect the public from advertising that does not meet minimum thresholds. If you allow 1800PITBULL, why not 1800ISUEPEOPLE, or 1800BESTWILL or any number of potentially deceptive phone numbers. The question is not whether anyone was misled by this ad, but whether people COULD be misled by this ad. As attorneys, we are held to a higher standard, as we should be. I think the Florida Bar is erring on the side of the consumer here, and thats not a bad thing.
Jonathan
Jonathan, I can't quite grasp your idea of "deception." How could someone looking for motorcycle injury lawyers (the Pape & Chandler specialty) possibly be "misled" by the PIT BULL theme? And, how could "I sue people" be misleading?
I just went to your law firm website. You call yourself the Law Offices of Jonathan G. Stein. Do you have more than one office? You have an About Us page. Is there more than one lawyer in your firm? You say the test is whether "someone could be misled." Could your website mislead someone? Just how ignorant or delusional does the potentially misled person have to be for the regulatory restriction to apply?
I agree that lawyers should be held to a higher standard. That's exactly why I have fought the unethical use of a standard contingency fee, the use of "dignity" excuses for restricting lawyer advertising, and many other practices that put the interest of lawyers before that of their clients. But, I refuse to assume that consumers are imbeciles and have no common sense. Deception was used as a figleaf to enforce dignity. Such a sad commentary on our profession.
http://www.erotica-xxx.gejkut18.info fiche vecchie http://www.amatoriali-sesso.ghoo18.info filmini porno com http://www.lecca-ano.hejkut18.info scambio mogli http://www.anale-estremo.ginorr18.info lesbiche che si leccano i piedi http://www.stranezze-galleria.hijooj18.info buono casalinga
http://sexxearch.info x
http://sexxearch.info x