Alexander v. Cahill
598 F.3d 79 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the First Amendment, a state cannot impose categorical bans on attorney advertising that is only potentially misleading without providing evidence that the restrictions directly advance a substantial state interest and are narrowly tailored. However, a state may impose a limited-time moratorium on targeted, multi-media solicitations directed at recent accident victims and their families to protect their privacy.
Facts:
- New York's Appellate Division adopted new rules for attorney advertising, effective February 1, 2007.
- The rules prohibited specific ad content, including testimonials from clients on pending matters, portrayals of judges, techniques unrelated to legal competence, and trade names or mottos implying an ability to get results.
- The rules also instituted a 30-day moratorium on targeted solicitations to personal injury or wrongful death victims following a specific incident.
- Alexander & Catalano, a personal injury law firm, used television commercials that featured jingles, special effects like smoke and blue electrical currents, and dramatizations depicting the lawyers as giants or assisting space aliens.
- One of the firm's advertisements depicted a judge in a courtroom.
- The firm used the slogan 'heavy hitters' and had no history of disciplinary actions based on its advertising.
- The new rules caused Alexander & Catalano to halt its advertising for fear of disciplinary action.
Procedural Posture:
- James Alexander, his law firm, and Public Citizen sued the chief counsels of New York's attorney disciplinary committees in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction, claiming the new advertising rules violated the First Amendment.
- After the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, striking down most of the content-based advertising restrictions as unconstitutional.
- The District Court also granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the 30-day moratorium on targeted solicitations.
- Both the plaintiffs (as cross-appellants) and the defendants (as appellants) appealed the portions of the district court's decision that were adverse to them to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do New York's disciplinary rules, which (1) prohibit certain content in attorney advertising such as client testimonials for pending matters, portrayals of judges, irrelevant attention-getting techniques, and mottos that imply results, and (2) impose a 30-day moratorium on targeted solicitations to accident victims, violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, Circuit Judge
No as to the 30-day moratorium; Yes as to the content-based restrictions (except the ban on fictitious firms). The content-based restrictions on potentially misleading advertising violate the First Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored and the state failed to prove they materially advance a substantial interest, while the 30-day moratorium on targeted solicitation is a constitutionally permissible, narrowly tailored restriction that serves the state's substantial interest in protecting the privacy of accident victims. The court applied the four-part Central Hudson test. For the content-based bans (on testimonials, judge portrayals, 'irrelevant' techniques, and mottos), the court found the state failed prongs three and four. The state provided no empirical or anecdotal evidence that these advertising methods were actually harming consumers or were misleading, relying instead on speculation. The court noted the state's own Task Force Report often contradicted the need for outright bans, instead suggesting less restrictive alternatives like disclaimers. Because these categorical prohibitions banned speech that was only potentially misleading, and less restrictive alternatives were available, they were not narrowly tailored. Conversely, the 30-day moratorium survived the Central Hudson test. Citing Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., the court found that the state has a substantial interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of victims and their families. The court held that this interest was materially advanced by a short-term ban on targeted solicitation and extended this logic beyond direct mail to include TV, radio, and internet advertising, reasoning that the intrusive nature of such targeted ads is comparable across media. The moratorium was deemed narrowly tailored because it is short, temporary, and still permits general advertising and allows victims to initiate contact with lawyers.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden states face under the Central Hudson test when regulating potentially misleading, non-deceptive commercial speech. It clarifies that a state cannot rely on conjecture or concerns about 'professionalism' or 'taste' to justify categorical bans on advertising techniques when less restrictive means, like disclaimers, are available. The ruling also significantly expands the scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., by applying the rationale for a solicitation moratorium beyond direct mail to all media, including broadcast and the internet. This signals that courts may view the state's interest in protecting victim privacy as strong enough to justify content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions across evolving technological platforms.
Unlock the full brief for Alexander v. Cahill