The legal Guard Dogs of Dignity are straining at their leashes again down in Florida. You can read the next
chapter in their attack on the Pit Bill logo of Fort Lauderdale lawyers Pape & Chandler, in the Florida State Bar’s
Initial Brief to the Florida Supreme Court (Case Nos: SC04-40/SC04-41).
decision in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler, along with the original Bar complaint,
and P&C’s comprehensive Memorandum of Law , can be found here. The Referee and ruled that
neither the 1 (800) PITBULL number, nor P&C’s logo are deceptive or otherwise violative of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar; he also held that the State’s lawyer advertising rules are unconstitutional
restrictions on commercial speech as applied here by The Florida Bar.
Before you read the highlights of FBA’s case, please note that this is a b&w version of the logo in question:
As we discuss here, FBA is represented by famed appellate Tallahassee lawyer Barry Richard. But all of
Richard’s talents could not turn this sow’s ear (horse’s rear?) of a case into a winner.
Here are excerpts from their brief that make the main points argued by Richard and FBA:
The use in a lawyer’s advertisement of a picture of a spiked-collar pit bull and the telephone
number 800-PIT-BULL provides the consumer with nothing of informational value and is
designed to convey the idea that the lawyer engages in tactics that are considered unprofessional
and that are prohibited in practice. Because such tactics are prohibited, the suggestion that the
lawyer can engage in them is inherently misleading in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(4). Moreover, the
use of reference to a pit bull is intended to describe or characterize the lawyer’s services in violation
Rule 4-7.2(b)(3).
The referee’s distinction between the characteristics of a lawyer and of a lawyer’s legal services for advertising purposes makes no sense and serves no purpose. For purposes of advertising for legal business, a lawyer’s personal traits and the traits attributable to his or her legal services are indistinguishable.
“tinyredcheck” There is no constitutional prohibition on regulating commercial speech that is more likely to deceive the public than inform it. The possibility of deception in using pit bulls in lawyer advertising is selfevident.
(emphasis added)
The purpose for which statements are used in lawyer advertising is key. Here, it would be one thing if the pit bull references were being used to communicate that Respondents represent victims of dog bites or matters involving pit bulls. Such a statement would be an objective, verifiable fact and would provide the same type of useful information as did the Dalkon Shield picture in Zauderer. But the Respondents do not claim to practice dog bite or pit bull law and are not trying to convey such information. What they are patently attempting to convey is a suggestion that they possess and use in their practice certain traits that are subjective and unverifiable by any objective test.Case law is abundant regarding the vicious nature of pit bulls.
Surveys or equivalent evidence is not required for the possibility of deception involving an aspect of our culture that is so commonplace and self-evident.
Descriptions or depictions of lawyers or their legal services as embodying the traits of pit bulls do not comport with the professional standards to which lawyers are currently held in Florida. It is the Bar’s position that Respondents’ television advertisements do nothing but threaten such professional standards and erode the confidence of the public in the legal system.
letting
the dog out–
the stars in
the first snowfall
doesn’t hide it…
dog poop
mother dog
blocks with her butt…
snowball
sunset tints
the cloudbank pink —
avoiding yellow snow
[Feb.5, 2005]
Speaking of lawyer ethics. take a peek at this article from February’s Washington
Lawyer, which “reviews the most popular of [website] disclaimers and discusses
the ways in which they may be featured on a law firm’s web site for maximum effect.”
(Thwarting Ethical Violations With Web Site Disclaimers, by Walter A. Effross )
My favorite passage:
These disclaimers can be taken to unusual and somewhat amusing lengths.
For instance, the terms-and-conditions page of one firm, whose site provides
a panoply of pages on its practice groups, lawyers, and publications, nonetheless
insists that the site is intended only to provide “general information to law students
and others who are considering a career at [the firm] or are interested in the firm.”
Similarly, another firm claims that “[t]his website is primarily intended for use by
law school students considering a career at our firm.”
Hi David,
Thanks for your continuing coverage of the Pit Bull story. Perhaps the Florida Bar wouldn’t have a problem with a different kind of dog in the ad? Perhaps one similar to the dog-logo displayed by biglaw firm Bingham, McCutcheon here – http://www.bingham.com/Bingham/default.asp (though I don’t think the firm has Florida offices). “Hairiest Deals, Turned Best in Show” is Bingham’s motto. I guess before we know it, the bars will be hiring breeding experts to scrutinze the particular type of animal and its propensities every time they’re use in an ad. What a waste of resources.
Carolyn
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — February 6, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
Hi David,
Thanks for your continuing coverage of the Pit Bull story. Perhaps the Florida Bar wouldn’t have a problem with a different kind of dog in the ad? Perhaps one similar to the dog-logo displayed by biglaw firm Bingham, McCutcheon here – http://www.bingham.com/Bingham/default.asp (though I don’t think the firm has Florida offices). “Hairiest Deals, Turned Best in Show” is Bingham’s motto. I guess before we know it, the bars will be hiring breeding experts to scrutinze the particular type of animal and its propensities every time they’re use in an ad. What a waste of resources.
Carolyn
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — February 6, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
Hi, Carolyn. Great link. Thanks. I hadn’t seen the Bingham mascot before — it’s sure not the breed or image I would have chosen to represent excellence, intelligence, drive, etc. I can’t wait till your big, fluffy puppy is on your masthead.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 6, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
Hi, Carolyn. Great link. Thanks. I hadn’t seen the Bingham mascot before — it’s sure not the breed or image I would have chosen to represent excellence, intelligence, drive, etc. I can’t wait till your big, fluffy puppy is on your masthead.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 6, 2005 @ 10:48 pm