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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT