{"id":7425,"date":"2007-03-31T14:18:10","date_gmt":"2007-03-31T19:18:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/03\/31\/the-bars-self-importance-is-undign"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:51","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:51","slug":"the-bars-self-importance-is-undignified-tasteless-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/03\/31\/the-bars-self-importance-is-undignified-tasteless-too\/","title":{"rendered":"the bar’s self-importance is undignified (tasteless, too)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"FloridaMap\"\u00a0\u00a0 A year and a day after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 800-PIT-BULL case, Pape & Chandler v. Florida Bar Ass’n<\/em>,\u00a0which could have curbed FBA’s overzealous\u00a0Dignity Police<\/em> (see our prior post<\/a>), Texas Third-Wave<\/em> lawyer Chuck Newton brought up the\u00a0situation of Steven Miller, Esq., and his battle with the Florida Bar over ads for\u00a0DivorceEZ.com<\/a>.\u00a0 Newton asks:\u00a0“Does the Bar Have a Right to Regulate Good Taste<\/a>” (Spare Room Tycoon<\/em>, March 28, 2007) (via Carolyn Elefant, Legal Blog Watch<\/em><\/a>).\u00a0<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. DivorceEZ<\/em>\u00a0is a\u00a0“flat-fee, no-frills divorce law practice,” and says it will help you “get out of the hell hole you call a marriage” and “get rid of that vermin you call a spouse.”\u00a0<\/li>\n
  2. You can read Miller’s press release here<\/a>, and click to see the\u00a030-second commerical<\/a>\u00a0the Florida Bar refuses to allow on tv.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Florida Bar’s advertising review committee told Miller the problem is that the ad is a “verbal depiction” whose language promises a particular result.\u00a0 Newton says “Mr. Miller’s TV spot is not too serious, but stopping him from running it is.”\u00a0 Like virtually every observer, Chuck Newton believes the bar is trying to ban what it considers bad taste.\u00a0 Newton notes:<\/p>\n

    “Some people, like me, are turned off by this type of TV spot. Some people gravitate toward the hyperbole. Further, some people desperately need the services, at the price, this lawyer is offering. Nobody has demonstrated he is doing a bad job for his clients. Nobody is accusing him of not doing what he says he will do. No client is filing a grievance asking him to stop the ad. Only the Bar-tenders are not happy.”\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \"erasingS\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0Newton asks who put the Florida\u00a0Bar in charge of good taste.\u00a0 Of course, the real question is whether the Florida Bar has any right to be\u00a0censoring bad taste (a sufficient state interest).\u00a0 The Florida Supreme\u00a0Court says yes,\u00a0and the U.S. Supreme Court could have definitively answered that question last year, but declined the opportunity.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

    bases loaded
    \nthe rookie pitcher
    \nblows a bubble<\/em><\/p>\n

    ……………………………. by ed markowski<\/a> – Baseball Haiku<\/a><\/em> (2007)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    I agree with Chuck that “The Bar-tenders are concerned that the ad might work.”\u00a0 A decade as an antitrust regulator specializing in the learned professions makes that purpose seem most logical to me.\u00a0 I’ve been saying for years that a large segment of the bar does not like advertising, because it might provoke a spurt of price competition for customers, or usher in alternative methods for providing legal services.\u00a0 However, I do not agree with Chuck that “They are not<\/em> concerned about the perception this might cause the legal profession in the state.” [emphasis added]<\/p>\n

    The Florida Bar specifically attacked Pape & Chandler’s pit bull logo<\/a> and theme in 2004 because the dog was considered to be too nasty a symbol for lawyers and irrelevant to the selection of a lawyer.\u00a0\u00a0As we described in a prior post<\/a> (Nov. 17, 2005), Florida’s highest court confirmed with alacrity, in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler<\/em><\/a> (Fla. Sup. Ct., 2005., 20-pp pdf), stressing:<\/p>\n

    \"SoapBox\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“These devices, which invoke the breed of dog known as the pit bull, demean all lawyers and thereby harm both the legal profession and the public\u2019s trust and confidence in our system of justice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    At the public admonishment of Pape and Chandler, Florida Bar Association President Alan B. Bookman<\/a>\u00a0continued\u00a0to stress their role as Dignity Police, saying\u00a0\u201cPermitting this type of advertisement would make a mockery of our dedication to promoting public trust and confidence in our system of justice.\u201d (more in prior post<\/a>)\u00a0 The Bar had presented absolutely no evidence of consumer harm or of public views on the topic; what counted was the ass<\/em>umed affect on the Bar’s image.<\/p>\n

    baseball
    \nrolls into the mud —
    \npainted lady flutters up<\/p>\n

    …………………………………. by randy brooks<\/a> – Baseball Haiku<\/a><\/em> (2007)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \"podium\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In several posts (including here<\/a> and there<\/a>) over the past couple of years,\u00a0I’ve described numbheaded\u00a0attempts by the bar and courts\u00a0to stifle advertising in the name of consumer protection and taste, but noted that the efforts demonstrated “a dislike of all<\/em> lawyer advertising” \u2014\u00a0because it is perceived as undermining\u00a0the profession\u2019s supposed \u201cdignity\u201d\u00a0 (by suggesting we are actually in commerce) and instigating an outbreak of unseemly competition.”\u00a0 The two issues — dignity (taste)\u00a0and competition — overlap.\u00a0 Part of the urge to uphold the\u00a0profession’s image is, I’m convinced, the unstated belief that\u00a0dignity helps to sustain an image that supports high\u00a0fees. \u00a0When ads such as those from DivorceEZ<\/em> both threaten the Bar’s selfesteem and challenge entrenched pricing and service practices, it can be no surprise that phony issues are raised aplenty to keep the ads out of view of the public.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

    \"ProfPointer\"\u00a0It’s not just the Florida Bar that wants to stifle as much advertising as possible. Kentucky and Missouri show the same tendencies (prior post<\/a>).\u00a0 Moreover, as I pointed out in a post<\/a> earlier this year, the New York State Bar Association\u00a0explicitly established a task\u00a0force on lawyer advertising in 2005\u00a0 \u201cto develop rules, standards and mechanisms aimed at limiting lawyer advertising to the fullest extent permitted, within the limitations of the First Amendment.\u201d (NYSBA press release<\/a>, June 1, 2005)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    In a way, I think the urge to police for bad taste and enforce dignity is more dangerous for the future of the profession, and its relationship to\u00a0the consuming publc,\u00a0than\u00a0any anticompetitive intent behind advertising regulations.\u00a0(For one thing, having restrictive rules adopted by the\u00a0courts almost always gives antitrust immunity to proponents in the Bar.)\u00a0 Along with the FTC<\/a> and the drafters of the Model Code<\/a>, I believe\u00a0that regulating taste has little or nothing to do with protecting consumers, and can harm them by limiting useful information and choice (prior post<\/a>).\u00a0 Nonetheless,\u00a0I’m pretty sure that\u00a0new service and pricing options can be brought to the public in effective ways that can pass any reasonable “taste test.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

    On the other hand, with their insistence on presenting a tasteful, dignified image<\/em> to the public, the Dignity Police are\u00a0almost certainly further damaging the very image that the\u00a0Lawyer Guild wishes to gild.\u00a0 In an early post at this website (“first thing, let’s quell all the liars<\/a>“), I made a still-relevant plea:<\/p>\n

    \"fencePainterS\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0My message to the legal profession:\u00a0 You do need more PR, but it must be Professional Responsibility, not Public Relations.\u00a0\u00a0 Image crafting only sounds like more deception to the average (and above-average) American.\u00a0 Like more lies.\u00a0\u00a0 Lost trust has to be earned the hard way \u2014 client by client, case by case, with the focus on competence, diligence, and loyalty toward the client; on responsibility toward society rather than toward guild and gelt; on virgorous overseeing rather than overlooking of ethical rules; and on service rather than self-importance.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The ridicule\u00a0that the\u00a0mainstream press (e.g<\/em>., St. Petersburg Times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0editorial, and James J. Kilpatrick column<\/a>), and the blogosphere (e.g<\/em>., from Hornsby<\/a>, to Whisner<\/a>, to Elefant<\/a>, and Pfeiffer<\/a>) heaped on the Florida Supreme Court for its banning of the pit-bull campaign is an indication that attempts to maintain\/create an appearance of dignity has just the opposite effect.\u00a0 Of course, virtually every non-lawyer\u00a0on the planet knows that (and\u00a0even most lawyers do).\u00a0 Just consider how we feel about the phony-genteel and dignified-prissy folk we’ve met in our lifetimes.<\/p>\n

    For the lexiconically minded, here are\u00a0some definitions of self-importance:<\/p>\n

    American Heritage: <\/em>self-importance<\/a>: Excessively high regard for one’s own importance or station; conceit.\u00a0 (The American Heritage\u00ae Dictionary of the English Language<\/em>: Fourth Edition.\u00a0 2000)<\/p>\n

    \"ProfPointer\"<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0Dictionary.com: <\/em>self-importance<\/a>: <\/em>having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance; pompously conceited or haughty.<\/p>\n

    WordNet 3.0 Vocabulary Helper:<\/em> self-importance<\/a>: <\/em>1.\u00a0 an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others [syn: ego]\u00a0 2.\u00a0 an exaggerated opinion of your own importance [syn: egotism]\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    In contrast, WordNet<\/em> notes that dignity<\/a> is a Coordinate Term\u00a0for the\u00a0noun self-importance.\u00a0 “Dignity<\/a>” is the quality of being worthy<\/em> of esteem or respect.\u00a0 Dignity comes from your values and your actions.\u00a0 Acting self-important is both undignified and tasteless.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Update<\/em> (April 1, 2007): Thanks to George Wallace (who is not afraid to refer to himself as\u00a0A Fool in the Forest<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> whatever the Dignity Police might prefer) for including this posting in his April Fool’s Blawg Review<\/em> Prequel 2007<\/a>.\u00a0 His prequel to tomorrow’s Blawg Review<\/em> #102 (which George hosts at his Declarations\u00a0& Exclusions<\/a><\/em> insurance law weblog) is surely one of the more intelligent celebrations of April’s Fool’s Day you will find in the blogoshpere.\u00a0 Its list of interesting recent posts from\u00a0law-related weblogs is\u00a0“constructed . . . around illustrations from Stultifera Navis<\/em>, the 1497 Latin translation of Sebastian Brant’s 1494 satirical German text, Das Narrenschiff<\/em>, aka The Ship of Fools<\/em>.”\u00a0<\/li>\n
    2. In George’s\u00a0Blawg Review<\/em>\u00a0Prequel, I learned that\u00a0Eric Turkewitz\u00a0penned “New York Responds to Lawsuit Challenging New Attorney Advertising Rules — By Banning Humor<\/a>” this week. (NY Personal Injury Law Blog<\/em>, March 28, 2007)\u00a0 After excerpting the NY response to a challenge to its new, overly restrictive lawyer advertising rules (described in our prior post<\/a>), Eric\u00a0scoffs, “So there it is, the ultimate lawyer joke, brought to you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo: Humor has now been banned.”\u00a0 George ‘s Prequel also points to MyShingle<\/em>‘s interesting take<\/a> on DivorceEZ v. FBA.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \"infielderG\"\u00a0<\/p>\n

      called third strike —
      \nthe slow roll of the ball
      \nback to the mound<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      seventh-inning stretch —
      \ndust from dragging the bases
      \nhangs in the air<\/p>\n

      ………………………………… by jim kacian<\/a> – Baseball Haiku<\/a><\/em> (2007)<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      summer haze\u00a0 \"infielderG\"\u00a0
      \ni pick off
      \nthe invisible man on first<\/p>\n

      ……………………………. by ed markowski<\/a> – Baseball Haiku<\/a><\/em> (2007)
      \n“bases loaded” – orig. pub. Haiku Sun<\/em> (Vol. 10, 2004)\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \"GUJackMugG\"\u00a0\u00a0 p.s. Were we talking bull dogs?\u00a0 GO HOYAS in the FINAL FOUR<\/a> tonight.\u00a0 (prior post<\/a>)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      \u00a0\u00a0 A year and a day after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 800-PIT-BULL case, Pape & Chandler v. Florida Bar Ass’n,\u00a0which could have curbed FBA’s overzealous\u00a0Dignity Police (see our prior post), Texas Third-Wave lawyer Chuck Newton brought up the\u00a0situation of Steven Miller, Esq., and his battle with the Florida Bar over ads […]<\/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":[900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1VL","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7425","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=7425"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12579,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7425\/revisions\/12579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}