New York Advertising Rules Held Unconstitutional

Today the Second Circuit announced it is upholding the N.D.N.Y. ruling that New York’s lawyer advertising rules are unconstitutional (with two exceptions — fictitious law firms and the thirty day moratorium on lawyers contacting accident victims).  Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi (possibly my new favorite judge’s name) wrote the opinion. The Buffalo lawyer was represented by Public Citizen.
 
The opinion is available from the New York Law Journal – http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleFriendlyNY.jsp?id=1202446174823 and at http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202446174823. The Complaint, Memoranda filed by the parties and amici, the District Court opinion and appellate briefs are available from Public Citizen – http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=358

Quoting from the opinion:

“New York’s Appellate Division adopted new rules prohibiting certain types of attorney advertising and solicitation, which were to take effect February 1, 2007. The new rules barred, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results. The amendments also established a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media. Plaintiffs, a New York attorney, along with his law firm and a not-for-profit public interest organization, challenged these provisions as violating the First Amendment. The District Court agreed in part—it declared most of the content-based rules unconstitutional, while upholding the thirty-day moratorium. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants timely appealed from portions of the District Court’s decision adverse to them. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs with respect to the content-based advertising restrictions, with the exception of the prohibition on portrayals of fictitious law firms. We likewise conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants with respect to the thirty-day moratorium.”

So let’s recap: William Shatner in a judge’s robe? Allowed. Fifty foot lawyers terrorizing Midtown Manhattan? Allowed.

Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro apologizing that he cannot “rip out the hearts of those of have hurt you”? Ok that last one was a trick — already allowed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5hn8bhEpMY – but good idea? Maybe that is the better question.