|
sunEthics |
|
The Florida Supreme Court Muzzles 1-800-PIT-BULL On November 17, 2005, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion imposing discipline on two attorneys for violating the Bar's advertising rules by using the term "pit bull" and an image of a pit bull with a spiked collar in their firm logo and using the telephone number "1-800 PIT-BULL" in their television commercial. The opinion is The Florida Bar v. Pape and Chandler, (SC04-40, SC04-41 Fla. November 17, 2005) The Florida Bar filed complaints against each attorney on January 12, 2004 alleging that the television commercial violated the Bar's advertising rules by using an improper descriptive statement of the quality of the firm's services in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(3) and a prohibited visual and verbal portrayal which was not objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney, and/or was deceptive, misleading, or manipulative in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(4). The referee appointed to hear the case and make factual findings and a recommendation to the Supreme Court on whether the advertisement violated the Bar's rules found that the ad did not violate Rule 4-7.2(b)(3) because the logo and telephone number described the "qualities of the…attorneys" but not the "quality of the lawyer services". The referee also found that the attorneys did not violate Rule 4-7.2(b)(4) since pit bulls are perceived as "loyal, persistent, tenacious, and aggressive" and these qualities are objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney. The referee further found that the ad was not improperly manipulative and was "tastefully done". Finally, the referee found that the ad was protected speech and that prohibition of the ad would render the rules unconstitutional as applied. In a lengthy and sharply worded opinion, authored by Chief Justice Barbara Pariente and joined by the other six justices, the Court forcefully rejected the attorneys' arguments and the referee's conclusion that the ad did not violate the Bar's rules. Justice Pariente's opinion stated that "permitting this type of advertisement would make a mockery of our dedication to promoting public trust and confidence in our system of justice". Further, "(p)rohibiting advertisements such as the one in this case is one step we can take to maintain the dignity of lawyers, as well as the integrity of, and public confidence in, the legal system. Were we to approve the referee's finding, images of sharks, crocodiles, and piranhas could follow." The opinion also rejected the First Amendment defense out of hand, concluding that "an advertising device that connotes combativeness and viciousness without providing accurate and objectively verifiable factual information falls outside the protections of the First Amendment. The attorneys were quoted in various media as considering an appeal of the opinion to the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, and unless reversed by that court, the opinion makes it very clear that, in Florida, the "PIT-BULL" has been muzzled. |
|
sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University's Jones School of Law. Please read our disclaimers. Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX. © 2008 |