Internet Regulation on Attorney Advertising
It seems the internet has finally attracted the attention of the powers that be in the state of New York regarding attorney advertising and web sites. It was bound to happen I guess, but as usual the rules at first blush (usually until tested in court) are outrageously vague as far as what is and is not allowed on websites maintained by attorneys. The first rule that troubles me is the one about client "testimonials." It seems the committee feels that current clients who are pleased with their attorney cannot be quoted expressing such thoughts on the attorney's website. What about a client who is still a client (many of us have those perpetual clients who although they do not have an active case at present..keep us on a retainer of sorts in the event something should occur)but does not have an active case? What about a client who is a repeat client somewhere down the road? Does the website have to be updated each time a former client becomes a new client again? Updating the website is also going to be problematic according to the rules. It seems that wherever a web site is updated, the update must be sent in to the commitee. What is up with that??? The Disciplinary committee seems to want to keep close tabs on all attorney websites in this state. Now for my favorite restriction. No pictures of Court Houses. Well, does that mean no specific court house or are all generic pictures of court houses in general prohibited. Are we as attorneys expected to present to our clients pictures of gymnasiums instead??? We are lawyers, we frequent court houses, why in the world are we not allowed to show a picture of even a generic court house on our websites? Or are we allowed and do they simply not want us to associate ourselves with a particular courthouse for fear it may seem like a misrepresentation to the public that we have a particular "in" at a certain courthouse if we depict it on our website. Now that is only a guess but hey, if I put a picture of the White House on my website, would that imply that I have an "in" with the President??
Forgive my frustration, but in our business we are paid to fine tune the law and help to interpret it for the public. When our own rule makers make rules which are general and vague, they not only cause mass confusion, but invite litigation or challenges which only tend to forestall the restrictions they seem anxious to put in place supposedly not just for the protection of the public, but for attorneys as well.