{"id":4824,"date":"2004-05-10T17:55:25","date_gmt":"2004-05-10T21:55:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/10\/ambulance-chaser-bill-stalls-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:47","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:47","slug":"ambulance-chaser-bill-stalls-in-tallahassee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/10\/ambulance-chaser-bill-stalls-in-tallahassee\/","title":{"rendered":"Ambulance-Chaser Bill Stalls in Tallahassee"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

\"back   <\/FONT>The bill that would ban all lawyer ads soliciting<\/EM> litigation “has apparently stalled in the Florida Legislature after its sponsor told Florida Bar officials he wants time to address concerns before bringing the bill back next year.”  Despite major questions about the ban’s constitutionality, The Florida Bar News Online <\/A><\/EM>reports<\/A> the bill likely would have passed<\/STRONG> in the full Senate.  <\/FONT>(“Attorney advertising bill stalls,” May 1, 2004; and, see sunEthics<\/A>)  The article notes:<\/FONT><\/P><\/DIV>
\n


\n
“Rep. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, said he hopes the Bar and the Florida Supreme Court will address lawyer advertising before the 2005 session, or he expects to reintroduce — and pass — legislation that prohibits lawyers from running ads soliciting clients to file lawsuits<\/STRONG>.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
. . .  “In response to the bill, the Bar Board of Governors, at its April 2 meeting, approved a legislative position that the Bar would support legislation imposing the strictest legislation of attorney advertising consistent with constitutional limitations.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
ethicalEsq <\/EM>discussed HB-1357 in a March 22 posting<\/A>, with links to the text<\/A>, to legislative staff analysis<\/A>, and to current advertising rules<\/A>, which may already be the most restrictive in the nation.  Prof. Yabut thinks lawyer-sponsor Simmons could use some tutoring in constitutional law (and maybe in logic).  Simmons told the Bar News <\/EM>that “he thinks his bill is constitutional and is necessary to protect the future of the legal profession.”   <\/FONT>Rather than offer commentary, let’s let Rep. Simmons speak for himself, in quotes and reportage from his interview with the Bar News <\/EM>(emphases added):<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld regulations that ban in-person solicitation by attorneys. “I don’t believe someone should be able to go in the back door and solicit by advertising when they can’t go in the front door [with direct solicitation],” the representative said. “I think it is inaccurate to suggest the strength of television advertising is less than a person appearing personally<\/STRONG>.”<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT>
\n

\"wake  “In many ways it [his bill] is a shot over the bow, it’s a wake-up call to The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court and attorneys,” Simmons said.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n