{"id":4221,"date":"2005-11-17T11:34:23","date_gmt":"2005-11-17T15:34:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/11\/17\/fla-high-court-puts-down-pape"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:24","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:24","slug":"fla-high-court-puts-down-pape-chandlers-pit-bull","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/11\/17\/fla-high-court-puts-down-pape-chandlers-pit-bull\/","title":{"rendered":"fla. high court puts down Pape & Chandler’s Pit Bull"},"content":{"rendered":"

T<\/strong><\/em>he Florida Supreme Court decided today that use of a 1-800-PIT BULL<\/font>phone number and of a logo<\/font><\/u> depicting the head of a pit bull violates the<\/font> States’s Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. See Florida Bar v.<\/em><\/a><\/font>John Pape and Marc Chandler<\/em><\/a>,<\/font> Fla. Sup. Ct., Case Nos: SC04-40\/SC04-<\/font> 41. Nov. 17, 2005. (our prior posts here<\/font><\/a>, here<\/font><\/a> and <\/font>there<\/font><\/a>) (see AP<\/em><\/a> and<\/font> Reuters<\/font><\/a>, Nov. 17, 2005)<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Court begins:<\/font><\/p>\n

“In this case we impose discipline on two attorneys for their <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>use of television <\/font>advertising <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>devices that violate the Rules of<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font> Professional Conduct. These devices, <\/font>which invoke the <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>breed<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font> of dog known as the pit bull, demean all lawyers and <\/font>thereby<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font> harm both the legal <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>profession and the public’s trust and confi<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>dence <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font>in our <\/font>system of justice.”<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For your information, this <\/font>is a smaller, b&w version of the <\/a><\/font>logo<\/a><\/font> in question:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n\"pitBullLogo\" <\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nPape & Chandler<\/font><\/a> is a two-man personal injury law firm that specializes in <\/font>
\nmotorcyclist injuries. In September 2004, the referee\/judge hearing the Florida <\/font>
\nBar’s case against Pape & Chandler<\/font>, ruled that neither the 800-PIT-BULL telephone <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\nnumber, nor the firm’s pit bull logo, violated the ethical Rules of the Florida Bar, <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\nwhich <\/font><\/font><\/font>were found to be unconstitutional as applied in this case. The FBA was <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\nrepresented by Tallahassee lawyer <\/font>Barry Richard<\/font><\/a>. P&C appeared pro se<\/em> in all <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\nof the proceedings.<\/font><\/p>\n

As we stated in September 2004: Your Editor is left asking the same <\/font><\/font>
\nquestion he had 30 years ago in law school: When will the profession <\/font><\/font>
\nsee that it will earn the respect of the public through the personal integrity <\/font><\/font>
\nof lawyers and the provision of quality services for reasonable fees — not<\/em> <\/font><\/font>
\nthrough some phony notion of “dignity” or by treating the public like children? <\/font><\/font>
\n(see <\/font>Indiana High Court Huffs and Puffs Over P\/I Ads<\/font><\/a>)<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> in full color <\/font><\/font><\/em>here <\/em><\/font><\/strong><\/a> . . . \"p&c\"<\/font><\/p>\n

Here are excerpts<\/em> from the Florida Court’s opinion<\/font><\/a>, written by Chief Justice<\/font>
\nBarbara Pariente: <\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny We conclude that attorneys Pape and Chandler (“the attorneys”) violated Rules Regulating <\/font>
\nthe Florida Bar 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4) by using the image of a pit bull and displaying the <\/font>
\nterm “pit bull” as part of their firm’s phone number in their commercial. Further, because the <\/font>
\nuse of an image of a pit bull and the phrase “pit bull” in the firm’s advertisement and logo does <\/font>
\nnot assist the public in ensuring that an informed decision is made prior to the selection of the <\/font>
\nattorney, we conclude that the First Amendment does not prevent this Court from sanctioning <\/font>
\nthe attorneys based on the rule violations. We determine that the appropriate sanctions for the <\/font>
\nattorneys’ misconduct are public reprimands and required attendance at the Florida Bar Advertising <\/font>
\nWorkshop.<\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny The logo of the pit bull wearing a spiked collar and the prominent display of the phone number <\/font>
\n1-800-PIT-BULL are more manipulative and misleading than a drawing of a fist. These advertising <\/font>
\ndevices would suggest to many persons not only that the lawyers can achieve results but also <\/font>
\nthat they engage in a combative style of advocacy. The suggestion is inherently deceptive because <\/font>
\nthere is no way to measure whether the attorneys in fact conduct themselves like pit bulls so as to <\/font>
\nascertain whether this logo and phone number convey accurate information.<\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny In addition, the image of a pit bull and the on-screen display of the words “PIT-BULL” as part of the <\/font>
\nfirm’s phone number are not objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney. The referee found <\/font>
\nthat the qualities of a pit bull as depicted by the logo are loyalty, persistence, tenacity, and aggres-<\/font>
\nsiveness. We consider this a charitable set of associations that ignores the darker side of the qualities <\/font>
\noften also associated with pit bulls: malevolence, viciousness, and unpredictability. Further, although <\/font>
\nsome may associate pit bulls with loyalty to their owners, the manner in which the pit bull is depicted <\/font>
\nin the attorneys’ ad in this case certainly does not emphasize this association. The dog, which is <\/font>
\nwearing a spiked collar, directly faces the viewer and is shown alone, with no indication that it is fulfilling <\/font>
\nits traditional role as “man’s best friend.<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

lightning flash–<\/font><\/em>
\nonly the dog’s face<\/font><\/em>
\nis innocent<\/font><\/em><\/p>\n

……………………………..\u00a0 Kobayashi Issa<\/strong><\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"tiny This Court would not condone an advertisement that stated that a lawyer will <\/font>get results through <\/font><\/font>
\ncombative and vicious tactics that will maim, scar, or harm the <\/font>opposing party, conduct that would violate <\/font><\/font>
\nour Rules of Professional Conduct. <\/font>See, e.g., R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.4(g)-(h) (prohibiting threats to <\/font><\/font>
\npresent <\/font>criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter). Yet <\/font>this is precisely <\/font><\/font>
\nthe type of unethical and unprofessional conduct that is conveyed <\/font>by the image of a pit bull and the display <\/font><\/font>
\nof the 1-800-PIT-BULL phone number.<\/font><\/p>\n

\"dog<\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny We construe the prohibitions on advertising statements that characterize the quality <\/font>of lawyer services and <\/font><\/font>
\ndepictions that are false or misleading to prohibit a lawyer <\/font>from advertising his or her services by suggesting <\/font><\/font>
\nbehavior, conduct, or tactics that <\/font>are contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny Indeed, permitting this type of advertisement would make a mockery of our <\/font>dedication to promoting public <\/font><\/font>
\ntrust and confidence in our system of justice. <\/font> <\/font>Prohibiting advertisements such as the one in this case is one <\/font><\/font>
\nstep we can take to <\/font>maintain the dignity of lawyers, as well as the integrity of, and public confidence <\/font>in, the <\/font><\/font>
\nlegal system. Were we to approve the referee’s finding, images of sharks, <\/font>wolves, crocodiles, and piranhas <\/font><\/font>
\ncould follow. For the good of the legal profession <\/font>and the justice system, and consistent with our Rules of <\/font><\/font>
\nProfessional Conduct, this <\/font>type of non-factual advertising cannot be permitted. We therefore conclude that <\/font>the <\/font><\/font>
\n1-800-PIT-BULL ad aired by the attorneys violates rules 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-<\/font>7.2(b)(4).<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny We also disagree with the referee’s conclusion that the application of rules <\/font>4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4) to <\/font><\/font>
\nprohibit this advertisement violates the First <\/font>Amendment. Lawyer advertising enjoys First Amendment protection <\/font><\/font>
\nonly to the <\/font>extent that it provides accurate factual information that can be objectively verified. <\/font>This thread runs <\/font><\/font>
\nthroughout the pertinent United State Supreme Court precedent.<\/font><\/p>\n

\"tiny The pit bull logo and “1-800-PIT-BULL” phone number are in marked <\/font>contrast to the illustration of the Dalkon <\/font><\/font>
\nShield intrauterine device at issue in <\/font>Zauderer, which the United States Supreme Court found to be “an accurate <\/font><\/font>
\nrepresentation . . . and ha[ve] no features that are likely to deceive, mislead, or <\/font>confuse the reader.” 471 U.S. at <\/font><\/font>
\n647. The Dalkon Shield illustration informed the <\/font>public that the lawyer represented clients in cases involving this <\/font><\/font>
\ndevice. The “pit <\/font>bull” commercial produced by the attorneys in this case contains no indication that <\/font>they specialize <\/font><\/font>
\nin either dog bite cases generally or in litigation arising from <\/font>attacks by pit bulls specifically. Consequently, the <\/font><\/font>
\nlogo and phone number do not <\/font>convey objectively relevant information about the attorneys’ practice. Instead, the <\/font><\/font>
\nimage and words “pit bull” are intended to convey an image about the nature of the <\/font>lawyers? litigation tactics. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“We <\/font>conclude that an advertising device that connotes <\/font>combativeness and viciousness without \"ooh\" <\/font><\/font>
\nproviding <\/font><\/font>accurate <\/font><\/font>and <\/font>objectively <\/font>verifiable factual information falls outside the protections of the First <\/font><\/font>
\nAmendment.”<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Or, put succinctly: “Da mean dog demeans da profession<\/font> (and confuses all dose consumers).”<\/font><\/p>\n

Are you a lot prouder of your profession now? Do you<\/font> feel more dignified and self-important? Is the public better protected?<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> 5 PM: Tim Chinaris at SunEthics<\/em><\/a> has a good summary of the opinion,<\/font> and notes: “Significantly, in view of the emphasis placed on empirical support<\/font> for a Bar advertising restriction in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc<\/font>.<\/a><\/em>, 515 U.S. 618 <\/font><\/font>(1995), the Court did not<\/em> address the portion of <\/font>the referee’s order<\/font><\/a> that noted that<\/font><\/font> the logo and phone number were not misleading, deceptive, or improperly manipu<\/font>lative, and that the Bar “has made no<\/u> record to the contrary, as to surveys or<\/font> studies of the public” (emphasis in original).<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

update <\/font><\/strong><\/em>(Nov. 20, 2005): words and a logo for the Florida Supreme Court,<\/font><\/a> which<\/font> excerpts an excellent editorial from The St. Petersburg Times<\/em> <\/font>“<\/font>Snarf. Growl. Meow?<\/font><\/a>,”<\/font><\/font><\/font> (Nov. 20, 2005) and suggests a logo for the Florida high court:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

not a pit bull, but a lot<\/em> of<\/font> \"bullG\"<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

update<\/strong> <\/em>(Nov. 22, 2005) <\/font><\/font>help choose a symbol for the Florida Supreme Court<\/font><\/a><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Nov. 23, 2005): <\/font>” pit bull ” as compliment<\/font><\/a> <\/font>.<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

update<\/font><\/strong><\/em> (Nov. 21, 2005) At Legal Ethics Forum<\/a><\/em>, Prof. McGowan has an astute reply to <\/font><\/p>\n

the Florida Supreme Court,<\/font>making many of the points we’ve made here (more eloguently<\/font><\/p>\n

and professorially, of <\/font>course), in “Another Ridiculous Anti-Advertising Case from Florida”<\/font><\/p>\n

(Nov. 20, 2005). <\/font>Likewise, Carolyn Elefant makes some pointedly apt remarks in her “An <\/font><\/p>\n

Ethics Decision <\/font>for the Dogs, at MyShingle<\/a><\/em> (Nov. 21, 2005). Carolyn reminded me that the <\/font><\/p>\n

Georgetown <\/font>University mascot <\/font>Jack the Bulldog<\/font><\/a> might be inappropriate for lawyers to display. <\/font><\/p>\n

It’s <\/font>a good thing I’m in retired status, because I wore my GU sweatsuit, with Jack’s tooth-<\/font><\/p>\n

bearing head over the weekend. <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\"GUJack\" Well, Justice Pariente, I’ve loved Jack the Bulldog since <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/p>\n

my <\/font>undergraduate <\/font>days at Georgetown, and I’m not giving him up. (get <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"tiny Here’s a portion of the Pape & Chandler reaction<\/a> to the decision, from <\/font><\/p>\n

their website:<\/font><\/p>\n

\n“On November 17, 2005 the Florida Supreme Court rendered their decision in <\/font><\/font>
\nthe <\/font><\/font>case of The Florida Bar v. Pape & Chandler<\/u>. We were disappointed not only <\/font><\/font>
\nby the result, but also by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the law <\/font><\/font>
\nregarding the scope of their review in this case, the Florida Supreme Court’s <\/font><\/font>
\ndecision to perform its own fact-finding in the case (to make up for the lack of <\/font><\/font>
\nfacts presented by the Florida Bar at the September 14, 2004 trial of the case), <\/font><\/font>
\nand the degree of judicial activism demonstrated by the Florida Supreme Court. <\/font><\/font>
\nWe continue to believe that neither our telephone number nor our logo contravene <\/font><\/font>
\nthe Rules Regulating the Florida Bar<\/u>, and are convinced that the November 17, <\/font><\/font>
\n2005 decision of the Florida Supreme Court merely reflects the fact that the <\/font><\/font>
\nofficers of the Florida Bar (an arm of the Florida Supreme Court) just do not like <\/font><\/font>
\nthe telephone number or the logo. We, once again, invite you to read Judge Herring’s <\/font><\/font>
\nAmended Final Order<\/u>, the briefs of the parties to the case, and the opinion of the <\/font><\/font>
\nFlorida Supreme Court to form your own opinion as to the propriety of the Florida <\/font><\/font>
\nSupreme Court’s opinion.” <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

update<\/font><\/strong><\/em> (Nov. 27, 2005): Salon<\/em>‘s Robert Crook analyzes<\/a> FBA v. Pape & Chandler <\/em><\/font><\/p>\n

in his inimitable manner. Crook notes, for instance:<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

“I mean, you could just as easily — no, much<\/em> more<\/em> easily — say that the U.S.<\/font> Supreme Court’s late-2000 Bush v. Gore<\/font><\/a><\/em><\/font> decision “demean[ed] all lawyers<\/font> and thereby harm[ed] both the legal profession and the public’s trust and<\/font> confidence in our system of justice.” <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“But nooooooooooooo,<\/em> it’s things like mascots<\/em> that are the black eye on the<\/font><\/font> legal “profession,” so let’s go after shit like that.<\/em><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"noloShark\" Final – sad – Update<\/em><\/strong>: See our post reporting that the U.S. Supreme court rejects PIT-BULL appeal<\/a> (March 27, 2006)<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/blockquote>\n

the first snowfall<\/font>
\ndoesn’t hide it…<\/font>
\ndog poop<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

mother dog
\nblocks with her butt…
\nsnowball<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

runaway kite!<\/font><\/p>\n

the dog also eyes it<\/font><\/p>\n

restlesslly<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

by <\/font>Kobayashi Issa<\/strong><\/font><\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n

translated by <\/font>David G. Lanoue<\/strong><\/font><\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Florida Supreme Court decided today that use of a 1-800-PIT BULLphone number and of a logo depicting the head of a pit bull violates the States’s Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. See Florida Bar v.John Pape and Marc Chandler, Fla. Sup. Ct., Case Nos: SC04-40\/SC04- 41. Nov. 17, 2005. (our prior posts here, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-165","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4221"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4221\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12917,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4221\/revisions\/12917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

the <\/font>poster here<\/a>)<\/font><\/p>\n