In an article slated for this Monday’s edition of the New York Law Journal, Eugene F. Pigott Jr., now a judge of the New York Court of Appeals, discussed how practitioners for the first time had input in formulating the new disciplinary rules regarding advertising and solicitation. Approximately 100 attorneys and virtually all of the major bar groups expressed concerns, which are reflected in the final product.

But while the article provides a nice summary of the judiciary-bar collaboration, I found Judge Pigott’s constitutional comments of most interest:

Pigott said he had no constitutional concerns with the original, more restrictive proposal even though it promptly sparked threats of litigation.

“We are a monopoly,” Pigott said. “We have a right to practice law, and no one else can. In return for that monopoly, we give up certain rights.”

While the courts may be able to regulate speech in some regard due to the monopoly, that doesn’t cure the problem of rules that are vague or over broad. I discussed this several days ago with respecting the fact that any prominently displayed photograph of an attorney may be violative of the rules, because it is “exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence.” It is certainly not the only place where ambiguity lies, as others have discussed (see links at that prior post).

Defining speech isn’t easy when the First Amendment comes in to play. Perhaps the courts will try to rely on Justice Potter Stewart’s famous 1964 definition of pornography:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” Jacobellis v. Ohio (concurring opinion)

We are unlikely to have heard the last on the subject:

Pigott made clear that he would have imposed stronger restrictions on attorney advertising and cautioned that the latest changes do not necessarily represent the last word. He urged attorneys to keep in contact with their presiding justice and to build on the cooperation that developed during the evolution of the advertising rules.

Does my family picture show “characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence?”

Is it possible that this backyard snapshot, which appears on the bio page of my law firm’s web site, subjects me to New York’s new disciplinary rules?

The new rules on attorney advertising have an interesting quirk, the ramifications of which I have not yet seen discussed:

DR 2-101(22 NYCRR 1200.6) provides in part, that “An advertisement shall not:
…

(c)[5] rely on techniques to obtain attention that demonstrate a clear and intentional lack of relevance to the selection of the most appropriate counsel including the portrayal of lawyers exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence;

According to a New York Law Journal article from January 8th:

That provision was added partially in response to advertisements run by a Long Island, N.Y., attorney who permitted herself to be filmed in provocative poses to tout her real estate practice. Those ads generated complaints from Long Island practitioners who noted that the attorney’s cleavage had nothing to do with her legal abilities, officials said.

Having now stepped on to the slippery slope of restricting attorney speech on how we portray ourselves, we must ask a couple questions:

Must photographs be the boring suit-and-tie shot you see on my firm’s home page? What does any picture have to do with “legal competence?” After all, a picture only identifies your race, sex, age and attractiveness. What does that have to do with competence?

At the risk of possible official reprimand, I’m keeping my family picture where it is. I’m basing it on the fact that, among other things, it does not reside on my home page but on a biography page, and is at the bottom of the page to boot. So I think, therefore, that it is not what they mean by “techniques to obtain attention.” You have to search a bit to find it.

But what if the appellate judges that made these rules meant otherwise? How, exactly, are we to know which informal pictures are OK and which not? Or if any picture at all is permitted?

Other links for the New York attorney advertising issues:

• New York Lawyer Advertising Rules Roundup (Sui Generis);
• 2007 Changes to the New York Ethical Rules Re: Lawyer Advertising (Legal Ease);
• Lawyer Advertising Rules in NY State: Make Lots of `Close’ Friends (Riverside Views).