Super Lawyers Now, Blogs Next?

Attorneys are starting to take note that some of the more extreme restrictions on attorney advertising and marketing are pointless in terms of protecting consumers and excessive in terms of a basic right to free speech. See Kevin O'Keefe's post, referring to a post by Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis.  O'Keefe notes that ethics regulators may not stop at advertising.

em>Lawyers, not wanting to take a chance, seek informal ethics opinions approving the lawyers plans to tell the world about themselves. I am already seeing it with blogs. Lawyers are asking me, 'should we submit our blog to the bar for ethics approval?'

As Norm says, few (I'm not aware of any) decisions seem to be directed toward the blogosphere. But unless lawyers, presumably the defenders of the First Amendment, take a stand we're going to find lawyer blogs regulated on the basis that someone may reach the conclusion the lawyer publishing the blog has some expertise and experience. God forbid. Protect the children."

As we've said many times, it's reasonable to ask that lawyers be truthful and not misleading when marketing themselves. Beyond that, consumers are harmed by too little information about lawyers --  certainly not by too much.

1 Comment

Agree that consumers of legal services are harmed by too little info about lawyers, not by too much.

It's been a sham argument by bar associations and courts governing legal ethics to say consumers are confused by third party commentary on lawyers. That argument is being made to protect lawyers who have a stranglehold on certain clients. Open commentary on lawyers' skill and expertise, especially on the net, where discussion flows freely and quickly, is an opening to lawyers who may better serve clients of the old guard.