{"id":7539,"date":"2007-04-25T18:43:23","date_gmt":"2007-04-25T23:43:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/25\/in-the-eye-of-the-bar-holder\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:49","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:49","slug":"in-the-eye-of-the-bar-holder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/25\/in-the-eye-of-the-bar-holder\/","title":{"rendered":"in the eye of the bar-holder"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0 An email yesterday from lawyer Marc Chandler<\/a>\u00a0plunged me back into the dizzy-ditsy world of the Florida Bar’s Dignity Police and Advertising\u00a0Nannies.\u00a0 Marc is half of the Ft. Lauderdale law firm of Pape & Chandler<\/a>, which is best-known for fighting the Florida Bar Association all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 and 2006, in a\u00a0losing attempt to continue to use a pitbull logo and 800 Number in promoting their motorcycle injury law practice.\u00a0 We’ve covered their story often and at length (e.g<\/em>., here<\/a>). Pape & Chandler tell about their fight with FBA in their own words, with links to many legal documents,\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"PanterPantherR\"\u00a0Panter Panter & Sampredo<\/strong> \u00a0\"PanterPantherL\"\u00a0[prior logo]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 Mark’s note intrigued me\u00a0by including\u00a0the answer to a question we raised<\/a> last April: If FBA can ban the image of a sleepy-eyed, non-growling pitbull — calling it fierce, combative and demeaning —\u00a0what will it do about the slinky panthers used by\u00a0Miami’s Panter, Panter & Sampredo<\/a>?\u00a0 As we noted in our post, Arne C. Vanstrum, Advertising Counsel for The Florida Bar, told Chandler<\/a> in a telephone call that lions are not as vicious as American Pit Bull Terriers, but panthers are vicious and they are investigating the panther logo.\u00a0 Marc and I both thought it might have been a little dignity-cop joke.\u00a0 However, the July 2006 Minutes<\/a> of the Florida Bar Board of Governors<\/a> (led by the current President, Henry M. Coxe, III<\/a>) shows just how arbitrary and subjective the FBA’s Dignity Police can be:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a09.\u00a0\u00a0 Report of Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 1)\u00a0Advertising Appeal 03-02483 concerns application of Rules prohibiting visual depictions that are false, misleading or manipulative.\u00a0 A law firm has been using an illustration of a pair of panthers for several years as part of the firm\u2019s logo in part as a play on the name of two of the partners (Panter).\u00a0 . . . The law firm filed a revised advertisement on November 28, 2005.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the interim, the Supreme Court of Florida publicly reprimanded two Florida Bar members for use of a pitbull in a television advertisement in The Florida Bar v. Pape<\/em> . . . Based on that case, staff requested guidance from the Standing Committee on Advertising regarding the filing law firm\u2019s use of the panthers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"PanterFirmLogo\"\u00a0 At its February 21, 2006 meeting, the Standing Committee on Advertising was divided on the issue of whether use of the panthers violates any lawyer advertising rules in light of the Pape & Chandler<\/em> case.\u00a0 Based on that guidance, staff issued an opinion on February 28, 2006 that the illustration of panthers does not comply with Rule 4-7.2(b)(4)<\/em> (emphasis added), which prohibits visual portrayals or depictions that are false, misleading, or manipulative.<\/em>\u00a0 The Standing Committee on Advertising upheld staff’s opinion on April 24, 2006.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The attorney subsequently requested Board of Governors review.\u00a0 The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics voted 4-0 to remove this item from the consent calendar and reverse the SCA decision. The board approved the board review committee\u2019s recommendation by voice vote.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"PanterLogoCrop\"\u00a0So,\u00a0FBA’s Standing Committee on Advertising indeed held,\u00a0a year and a day ago, that the cuddly pair of panthers at the head of this paragraph violated the code of legal ethics, as a visual depiction that is\u00a0“false, misleading, or manipulative.”\u00a0 The Board of Governors reversed that decision — but did it on a voice vote,\u00a0without giving reasons. The end result is a good one, but I wonder what the process says about the treatment of Pape and Chandler.\u00a0 Please recall that the following\u00a0masthead contains the only pitbull depiction<\/em> ever used by Pape & Chandler:\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0\"pitBullLogo\"\u00a0orig<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How can this little doggie be condemned when the panthers are exonerated?\u00a0 How can the Florida Supreme Court agree that the depiction of a ferocious pitbull demeans the profession, and FBA president Alan Bookman admonish Pape and Chandler that \u201cThe advertising devices would suggest to many persons not only that you can achieve results but also that you engage in a combative style of advocacy<\/em>\u201d, when panthers are okay?\u00a0(see prior post<\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

spring-like day
\nthe cat grapples
\nwith a catnip bird<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 spring rain the cat\u2019s pink nipples<\/p>\n

wilderness trail\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\"FloridaMap\"\u00a0\u00a0
\nthe manicured poodle
\nstill on a leash\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

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

…………………….. by Carolyn Hall<\/a>\u00a0
\n\u201cspring-like day\u201d – The Heron\u2019s Nest<\/em> (Vo. VI, 2004)
\n\u201cspring rain\u201d – 2003 Henderson Hon. Men.; Frogpond<\/em> XXVII: 1
\n\u201cwilderness trail\u201d – The Heron\u2019s Nest<\/em> (II:11, Nov. 2000)<\/p>\n

\"boxerGrayS\"\u00a0 Speaking of “combative style of advocacy<\/em>“: Marc Chandler’s email informed me that the\u00a0Board of Governors\u00a0has also recently permitted a new ad from the firm of Dell & Schaeffer<\/a> in which the Dell & Schaeffer attorneys are standing inside a boxing ring with the tag line \u201cLet us be in your corner<\/em>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ferocious?<\/em>\u00a0 It’s also a bit strange that the simple depiction of the head of a pitbull by P&C (shown above) is decried as suggesting an unacceptably\u00a0fierce brand of lawyering, when the high-profile, immensely successful, well-connected law firm of Robert M. Montgomery, Jr<\/a>. (who was lead counsel for Florida in its $13.5 billion settlement with Big Tobacco) gets to use the following masthead<\/p>\n

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

and<\/em>\u00a0to open the website<\/a> with the words\u00a0\u201cwe pride ourselves on being fierce trial attorneys<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 In deciding whether the Florida Bar is truly worried about misleading and manipulating the public with a depiction, or instead about some pathetic notion of Dignity of the Profession, consider the cleancut Panter Brothers:<\/p>\n

\"PanterBrett\"\u00a0& \"PanterMitchell\"\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0Brett and Mitchell Panter,<\/p>\n

and pillar of the community,\u00a0\"RMMJr\" Bob Montogomery;\u00a0also, take a look at the photo of the partners at Dell & Schaeffer<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 Ads from these “suitable” firms\u00a0have passed muster with FBA.\u00a0 Now, compare their “image” with \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

the\u00a0motorcycle-riding, suitless John Pape and Marc Chandler \"p&c\"\u00a0 \u00a0<\/font>full tv image<\/font><\/a><\/p>\n

It sure makes me want to scratch my head, and to quote to you from the new-look Pape & Chandler website<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“When you hire Pape & Chandler, you hire John Pape and Marc Chandler. We refuse to water down our legal product by hiring a gaggle of assistants. We have to work harder because we do everything ourselves. . . ..\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

“Beware the attorney who assumes that he’s dignified and professional merely because he sports a neat little newscaster hairdo, sleeps in a business suit and works for or represents large corporations<\/em>. You know the type of stuffed shirt we’re talking about. Professionalism and dignity are not products of such superficial nonsense. Some of the most dignified, loyal and trustworthy people we know haven’t worn a suit in years and have long hair and multiple tattoos. At Pape & Chandler, we believe that dignity and professionalism are qualities that you have to earn like a soldier earns his stripes.<\/p>\n

“As attorneys we earn those traits by how well we treat our clients, how loyal we are to them and how tenaciously we work on their behalf. We earn those traits by being fully and completely prepared every time we represent a client’s interests inside or outside of the courtroom. We don’t assume that graduating law school and passing the bar exam automatically imbues in us the qualities that smart clients should seek in their attorneys-loyalty, tenacity, commitment, and preparation. We have earned those characteristics one client at a time over the course of our combined 20-plus years of legal practice.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\"papechandler2007\"\u00a0 You can now reach John and Marc at 1-888-MOTOLAW<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0lightning flash–
\nonly the dog\u2019s face
\nis innocent
\n\u00a0
\n………… by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
\n\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

country graveyard
\na dog burying
\na bone<\/p>\n

nobody on the street
\nstray dog stops to bite
\nits wagging tail<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0………………………. by George Swede from Almost Unseen
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"FloridaMap\"\u00a0\u00a0 We recently detailed<\/a> the dignity indictment by FBA against Steven Miller, Esq. and DivorcEZ<\/em>. \u00a0 In case you think that I’m picking on the Florida Bar, here are some of the ethics actions taken over the past year by\u00a0its Advertising Nannies:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Per the September 29, 2006 Minutes<\/a> of the Florida Bar Board of Governors [BOG]: a) Staff concluded, and the BOG agreed that the language \u201cAvoid Time in Court\u201d and “\u201cSAVE VALUABLE TIME!”<\/strong> in a direct mail advertisement to handle traffic ticket cases was likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(1)(B), among other
\nrule violations.\u00a0\u00a0 b) Staff and the Standing Committee on Advertising concluded that the language “When justice is done for a mother, a child a family you can\u2019t beat that<\/em>” is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve.\u00a0 The Board Review Committee ane full BOG disagreed, finding the above language permissible.\u00a0 c) The visual depiction of a crashed car with people inspecting the crashed car, including a deployed
\nairbag, was found to be manipulative and therefore impermissible under Rule 4-7.2(b)(4).\u00a0\u00a0 and d) Background sounds such as horns honking, traffic, wind through a car window<\/em>, squealing brakes, and a heart monitor\u00a0were found to be impermissible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"boxerSignN\"\u00a0\u00a0 Per the BOG December 8, 2006 Minutes<\/a>: a) the phrase “legal firepower when you need it most<\/strong><\/em>” was determined to be a statement that characterized the quality of legal services, in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(3).\u00a0 b) when the same law firm then submitted the phrase “Protecting you and your family for 25 years<\/strong><\/em>” was deemed impermissible, because likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, in violation of rule 4-7.2(b)(1)(B).\u00a0 c)\u00a0 Based on guidance from the Standing Committee on advertising, staff rendered opinions that television advertisements using the telephone numbers 1-800-Justice<\/strong><\/em> and 1-800-Justicia<\/em> were misleading.\u00a0 Eventually, the Board Review Committee and full BOG reversed and allowed the use of the numbers (although owned by an out-of-state company).\u00a0 And, d) the Board accepted a proposal that use of the term\u00a0\u201cDoctor of Law<\/strong>\u201d or \u201cDoctor of Laws\u201d is misleading in the context of an advertisement published in English.\u00a0 It took the position that “lawyers can state their own actual degrees, but that use of anything other than the degree is misleading and impermissible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two final points before I get accused of being too combative and demeaning\u00a0to the legal profession:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to the Orlando Business Review, “Florida Bar’s board favors Web ad regulation<\/a>.”\u00a0 Under the proposed Website Rule 4-7.6,\u00a0the homepage would be treated like all other advertising (except for needed prior approval), with lawyers allowed to advertise their past results and the quality of legal services through testimonials on Web pages that are just one click past the homepage. (BizJournals<\/em>.com, March 30, 2007).\u00a0 That is not very surprising, of course.\u00a0 What is<\/em>\u00a0a bit unexpected, however, is the assertion\u00a0by Charles “Chobee” Ebbets, chairman of the special committee that developed the proposed Web advertisement rule,\u00a0that the proposed rule\u00a0would make Florida the first state<\/em> to address lawyer advertisements via the Internet.<\/li>\n
  2. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Possibly Relevant Blast from the Past<\/em>:\u00a0 In Ethics Opinion 82-1<\/a>\u00a0(April 1, 1983), the Board of Governors (going against the majority of members of the ethics committee)\u00a0concluded that\u00a0“A lawyer’s inclusion of the statement ‘Jesus is Lord<\/em>‘\u00a0with a drawing of the dove<\/strong><\/em> of peace<\/strong> in his advertisements does not violate the commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”\u00a0 The opinion noted that the words and drawing does not appeal primarily to “fear, greed, desire for revenge or similar emotion” and is not “showmanship, puffery, self-laudation or hucksterism.” [There is no mention about whether the items are likely to promise results or suggest an undue connection to a decision-maker.]\u00a0 The Ethics Opinion also explained (are you listening, current FBA leaders?): “While the inclusion of such a message in a commercial advertisement may be viewed by many as ‘professional bad taste, the United States Supreme Court in In The Matter of R.M.J<\/a>., [455 U.S. 191 (1982)], declined to recognize bad taste as a viable ground for restriction of commercial speech.”\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    slanted light
    \nthrough meadow grass
    \nthe jackrabbit’s ears<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    lopsided moon
    \na phone message saying
    \nthe cat is dead<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    …………………….. by Carolyn Hall<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0– Acorn<\/em> #16 (2006)\u00a0<\/p>\n

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

    \u00a0\u00a0 An email yesterday from lawyer Marc Chandler\u00a0plunged me back into the dizzy-ditsy world of the Florida Bar’s Dignity Police and Advertising\u00a0Nannies.\u00a0 Marc is half of the Ft. Lauderdale law firm of Pape & Chandler, which is best-known for fighting the Florida Bar Association all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 and […]<\/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":[3513,900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1XB","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7539","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=7539"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7539\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12553,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7539\/revisions\/12553"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}