Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a First Amendment challenge against two rules of the Florida Bar concerning attorney advertising. The plaintiffs, a law firm specializing in personal injury, contested rules mandating that website statements be 'objectively verifiable' and restricting claims of specialization to board-certified attorneys. The court found the challenge to the verifiability rule unripe but ruled the specialization restriction unconstitutional. The court applied the Central Hudson test to evaluate the Bar's regulation of commercial speech, concluding that the prohibition on truthful claims of specialization failed to meet the test's requirements for advancing a substantial interest. The Bar's procedures for reviewing compliance provide non-binding 'safe harbor' opinions, yet these are not definitive. The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoined enforcement of the challenged rule, and dismissed other claims for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling underscores the necessity for empirical evidence in regulating attorney advertisements under First Amendment standards. The order was issued on September 30, 2015, with the court retaining jurisdiction for related future motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of Specialization Claims under Central Hudson Testsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that prohibiting attorneys from claiming specialization or expertise without board certification failed to meet the Central Hudson test for restricting commercial speech.
Reasoning: The Bar’s prohibition on truthful claims regarding a lawyer’s or law firm’s specialization or expertise, particularly on websites, fails the Central Hudson test.
Court's Authority and Jurisdiction in Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion, denied the defendants' motion, and retained jurisdiction for future motions regarding costs and enforcement.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs' amended summary-judgment motion is granted in part and denied in part... The court retains jurisdiction for future motions regarding costs, fees, and to enforce the injunction.
First Amendment Challenge to Attorney Advertising Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the constitutionality of Florida Bar rules restricting attorney advertising, focusing on claims of specialization and objectively verifiable statements.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs argue that both rules violate the First Amendment, both on their face and as applied, while an earlier ruling dismissed the vagueness challenge to Rule 4-7.13.
Procedural Requirements for Attorney Advertising Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Florida Bar established a procedure for attorneys to seek review of their advertising statements, providing a 'safe harbor' but not binding on the Bar or attorneys.
Reasoning: The Florida Bar has established a three-step procedure for attorneys to seek opinions on whether their website statements comply with the rules, with a favorable opinion at any step providing a 'safe harbor' from discipline.
Ripeness of Legal Challengessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the challenge to the rule requiring objectively verifiable statements is not ripe, while the challenge to the specialization rule is ripe and unconstitutional.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs' challenge to this rule is deemed not yet ripe under Eleventh Circuit authority... This rule is considered ripe for challenge and is found unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.