ILNews

Lawyer advertising spurs State Bar survey plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hoosiers will soon be asked whether "ambulance chasing" attorneys should have to wait 30 days after an accident or injury before directly contacting potential clients by mail.

The Indiana State Bar Association plans to find out what residents think about a month-long cooling-off period where lawyers wouldn't be able to advertise their services by direct mail.

At its annual meeting, the bar association's Board of Governors gave approval Oct. 1 for a survey of Indiana residents about a proposed lawyer advertising rule that was submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court two years ago.

That measure includes changes to Section 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding advertising. Specifically, Rule 7.3(b)(3) wouldn't allow an attorney to advertise directly to a person or their family within a month of any accident or disaster for a personal injury or wrongful death action.

"There is potential for abuse inherent in direct solicitation by a lawyer of prospective clients known to need legal services," the proposed rule commentary says, noting how the public can be overwhelmed after an accident and not able to make a reasoned decision. "The situation is therefore fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching. This potential for abuse ... justifies the 30-day restriction, particularly since lawyer advertising permitted under these rules offers an alternative means of communicating necessary information to those who may be in need of legal services."

The Rules Committee is still reviewing and considering the request, according to Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan.

But before a final decision is considered, the ISBA wants the court committee and justices who'd review the issue to have more empirical data from the audience receiving attorney advertising, according to ISBA immediate past-president Doug Church, who watched this issue grow during his term. The survey is intended to follow a 1995 ruling from the United States Supreme Court that determined specific guidelines for adopting these types of rules.

In Florida Bar v. Went for It Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995), the court upheld the state's restriction on lawyer advertising under the First Amendment's commercial speech doctrine - the first time justices had done so since the landmark Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), that lifted the traditional ban on lawyer advertising. Florida had adopted a rule in 1990 prohibiting attorneys from sending solicitation letters to injury victims or their relatives until after 30 days had elapsed. One attorney who'd regularly done so challenged the rule on grounds it violated his constitutional free-speech rights.

The court held that Florida's regulation was permissible and states could adopt those rules as long as the particular jurisdiction satisfied a three-prong test: that the government asserts a substantial interest in supporting the regulation; that it can demonstrate the restriction directly and materially advances the interest; and that the regulation is "narrowly drawn." Justices held the protection of potential client's privacy is a substantial interest; that a two-year study conducted on the effects of direct target mailings demonstrated the harms were real and this regulation would alleviate them to a degree; and that a 30-day cooling-off period was acceptably brief and didn't stop people from finding an attorney if they needed one.

Church said the ISBA committee studied several cases but focused on the one from Florida because it provides definitive guidelines.

Specifics haven't been outlined on how the study will be conducted, but it's expected to cost about $25,000 and a firm will likely be hired to survey residents in some fashion, he said. •

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT