by Bradley Parsons
Staff Writer
The Florida Bar board of governors has approved several changes to its advertising policies, but the debate among members continues about whether the new standards will survive Supreme Court review.
Advertising became a priority issue for the Bar last year when Tallahassee attorney Kelly Overstreet Johnson took over the presidency. She had previously chaired a task force on the subject.
That task force provided the raw material for what eventually became stricter policies approved by the Board of Governors at its April 8 meeting. The new rules require the Bar to approve ads before they can be broadcast on TV and radio.
Detractors view the change as uncomfortably close to prior restraint. They think the new rules might raise First Amendment concerns when they make a mandatory appearance before the state Supreme Court. Supporters of the new provisions don’t see any constitutional hurdles and say the changes are necessary to keep ads in line with the Bar’s intentions.
The Bar allows ads, but they’re not supposed to benefit the lawyer or firm. Attorney ads are intended to benefit the public. They’re viewed as a practical way to let those in need of legal help find a qualified lawyer.
Good ads give a sober and entirely truthful presentation of a lawyer or firm’s experience and credentials. Former Bar President Howard Coker, a partner at Coker, Myers, Schickel, Sorenson and Green, said he sees more and more ads that stray from that purpose.
“Advertising is supposed to allow the public to make a better-informed choice (in hiring an attorney), I’m not sure if some of the advertising we see today does that.”
Beyond the ethical questions, Coker said concern is growing among Bar members that the problem ads are contributing to a negative perception of the legal profession.
“They allow the detractors of lawyers to paint lawyers as ambulance chasers,” he said.
Coker said lawyers basically break into three camps regarding their opinion of advertising. There are lawyers that advertise, lawyers who see advertising as the bane of the legal industry and lawyers who don’t advertise but recognize that others have the right to do so. Coker counts himself as a member of the last group.
“You won’t see me on a billboard or on the back of a phone book,” said Coker. “But if it’s done within the Bar’s standards, it’s become an accepted method of attracting clients.”
Wayne Hogan’s firm is one of the most prominent local advertisers. Terrell Hogan began advertising for a short time in the early 1980s to alert sufferers of asbestos injuries of their legal rights. The firm began advertising full time about two years ago, he said.
“Lots of people with diagnosed cases were unaware that they had any options and the statute of limitations was running out,” said Hogan. “We thought that was unfair. We decided to let people know if they were diagnosed (with asbestos ailments) that they then should consider getting a lawyer.”
Hogan said legal ads get a bad rap. Critics, he said, are often swayed by the number of ads they see. Taken one at a time, the ads are largely compliant with the Bar’s regulations, he said.
Coker agreed that the ads he sees from Florida firms are far less problematic than in other states. He recalls seeing a South Carolina billboard predicting a large cash award courtesy of an attorney nicknamed “The Hammer.”
“Another one said something like, ‘Call Strongarm, he’ll take care of you,” said Coker. “It’s amusing, but at the same time degrading.”
Coker predicts smooth sailing through the Supreme Court for the new standards, but Hogan thinks the prior restraint issue could come up.
“Naturally the Court is going to be concerned about the implications of the First Amendment and they’ll be attuned to that during their review,” Hogan said. “How they’ll address it, I’m not sure.”