Fla. Bar v. Pape - 918 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2005)

Rule:

The rules contained in Fla. R. Bar 4-7 are designed to permit lawyer advertisements that provide objective information about the cost of legal services, the experience and qualifications of the lawyer and law firm, and the types of cases the lawyer handles. The comment to rule 4-7.1 provides that a lawyer's advertisement should provide only useful, factual information presented in a non-sensational manner. Advertisements using slogans fail to meet these standards and diminish public confidence in the legal system.

Facts:

The Florida Bar filed complaints against the attorneys, alleging that their law firm's television advertisement was an improper communication concerning the services provided, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The advertisement included a logo that featured an image of a pit bull wearing a spiked collar and prominently displayed the firm's phone number. The Bar asserted that this advertisement violated the 2004 version of Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4). The referee found that the attorneys did not violate rule 4-7.2(b)(3), relying on the distinction that the logo and telephone number "describe qualities of the respondent attorneys" but do not describe or characterize "the quality of the lawyer services." The referee also rejected the Bar's assertion that the ad violated rule 4-7.2(b)(4). The referee also concluded that the ad was protected speech and therefore that an interpretation of rules 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4) to prohibit the ad would render the rules unconstitutional as applied.

Issue:

By using the image of a pit bull and displaying the term “pit bull” as part of their firm's phone number in their commercial, did the attorneys violate Florida Bar 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4)? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Despite the findings of the referee, because the use of an image of a pit bull and the phrase "pit bull" in the firm's advertisement and logo did not assist the public in ensuring that an informed decision was made prior to the selection of the attorney, the First Amendment did not prevent sanctions against the attorneys. The court first found that the pit bull logo and their 1-800-PIT-BULL telephone number did not comport with the general criteria for permissible attorney advertisements as stated in the comments to Fla. R. Bar 4-7. The simultaneous display of the logo and the phone number conveyed both the characteristics of the attorneys and the quality of the services they purported to provide, which amounted to an improper characterization of the quality of the lawyers' services. Because the prohibited depictions were also deceptive, misleading, or manipulative, the ad violated Fla. R. Bar 4-7.2(b)(4). Finally, because the referee did not impose discipline, and the court had approved public reprimands and attendance at the Florida Bar Advertising Workshop for attorneys who were found guilty of violating the advertising rules, such was warranted here.