Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: Ben W. Glass
Profession: Attorney at Law

Category: Ethics and Regulation

My good friend Lisa Solomon (QuestionofLaw.net) gave me a heads up on what I believe is a clear infringement of the First Amendment by the Connecticut Bar "web site audit committee." (Lisa helps me a ton by keeping a lookout for interesting lawyer advertising rulings and opinions!)

It seems that the Connecticut bar routinely does website "audits" to check compliance.

In a recent audit, they had a lawyer change "Mr. Smith limits his practice to XYZ" to Mr. Smith's practice "includes XYZ."

What is the purpose of that? If lawyers are supposed to get quality information to consumers, it is idiotic to prohibit a lawyer from telling the consuming public that he limits his practice to certain areas. It is idiotic for many reasons but think about this. The bar, is, in effect, compelling the lawyer to waste his most precious asset, time, by now having to handle the calls and inquiries from potential clients who have legal matters he does not handle! Frankly, that's a government mandated theft of time!

The bar's reasoning, apparently, was that in saying you "limit" your practice its like saying you are an "expert" and "we don't let people say they are an expert unless they are certified."

To prohibit an attorney from saying he "limits" his practice to certain areas is a clear First Amendment violation and there is no conceivable, let alone, compelling, state interest in this restriction.

Had I been that lawyer I would have told them to stuff it.