Law.com – Attorney Ad Rules Spark Unusual Collaboration Between Judges, Bar
The involvement of the bar in the formulation of new attorney advertising restrictions marked an unprecedented collaboration between the legal community and court administrators, and one entered into with considerable consternation, a top judge revealed Thursday.Eugene F. Pigott Jr., now a judge of the New York Court of Appeals, said the presiding justices were reluctant to solicit opinions from the bar in drafting a new disciplinary rule on advertising, largely because they had never done so before. But ultimately the judges “knew what we didn’t know” and began a cooperative venture, he said.
Pigott, who was presiding justice of the Appellate Division, 4th Department, when the new rules were first crafted, suggested ground may have been broken for a new relationship between the rule makers and practitioners.
“This was the first time we ever asked for input,” Pigott said yesterday at the New York State Bar Association’s annual meeting. “But I think we knew what we didn’t know, and we didn’t really know how it would impact practice.”
The presiding justices last June proposed amending the code of professional conduct to add sweeping new restrictions on attorney advertising. However, rather than just impose the rules, the justices opened a comment period. Approximately 100 attorneys and virtually all of the major bar groups expressed concerns, which are reflected in the final product.
“This has been a terrific effort in collaboration,” said Michael R. Wolford, former president of the Monroe County Bar Association, whose guidelines on attorney advertising sparked recommendations by the New York State Bar Association. “What I find particularly interesting is the cooperation between the organized bar and the courts. This was not a case where something was imposed without an opportunity to comment, and I hope they learned from this effort.”
The new rules attempt to clamp down on what the presiding justices consider inappropriate advertising without violating the constitutional right to free speech.
………
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.”
ADVERTISING ‘EXPLOSION’
Pigott said the new rules grew out of a concern of the presiding justices over the “explosion” of attorney advertising, and their suspicion that some of the ads were not only distasteful but misleading.
“We were concerned about lawyers who wanted to give the impression that they are the best, when they were often quite young and inexperienced,” Pigott said. “What you and I do as lawyers is serious. And on TV are these pop-ups who make a joke out of it.”
Pigott also offered insight into the workings of the administrative board of the courts, which consists of the four presiding justices and the chief judge. He said that no major disciplinary rule is changed without unanimous agreement. As an example, Pigott said he has pushed for mandatory legal malpractice insurance.
“I think it is a great idea,” Pigott said. “Others didn’t. So it will go nowhere. It is a little scary to think that I, as a presiding justice, can stop any disciplinary rule that comes across my desk.”
……..
Meanwhile, the New York Legal Marketing Association, a not-for-profit group, is putting together an educational Web cast on the new rules. Members and nonmembers can register for the Feb. 8 program at www.legalmarketing.org.Andrea Stimmel, president of the trade group, said the number of lawyers who advertise is relatively minor.
…….
An explanation of the rules and their impact also can be found in an article by Anthony Davis, “Appellate Divisions Release New Lawyer Advertising Rules,” Jan. 22 and on www.nylj.com.
Related posts:
0 Response to “Law.com – Attorney Ad Rules Spark Unusual Collaboration Between Judges, Bar”