The Florida Bar v. Pape
918 So.2d 240, 2005 WL 3072013 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Attorney advertising that uses animal imagery and slogans, such as a pit bull, to characterize the quality of a lawyer's services as aggressive or combative is manipulative, misleading, and not objectively relevant to the selection of counsel, thus violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and is not protected commercial speech under the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Attorneys John Robert Pape and Marc Andrew Chandler formed a law firm.
- The law firm created and ran a television advertisement to solicit clients.
- The advertisement's logo featured an image of a pit bull wearing a spiked collar.
- The pit bull image was placed between the attorneys' names, where an ampersand would normally be.
- The advertisement also prominently displayed the firm's phone number as 1-800-PIT-BULL in large, capitalized letters.
- The advertisement was intended to suggest that the attorneys were tenacious, persistent, and aggressive.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Bar filed complaints against attorneys John Robert Pape and Marc Andrew Chandler in a disciplinary proceeding.
- A referee was appointed to hear the case.
- The referee's report found that the attorneys' television advertisement did not violate the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
- The referee also concluded that applying the rules to prohibit the ad would be an unconstitutional violation of the attorneys' free speech rights.
- The Florida Bar, as the complainant, sought review of the referee's report before the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a pit bull image and a '1-800-PIT-BULL' phone number in a lawyer's television advertisement violate Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting characterizations of the quality of services and manipulative depictions, such that the state can regulate it without violating the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, C.J.
Yes. The use of a pit bull image and a '1-800-PIT-BULL' phone number in a lawyer's advertisement violates Florida's professional conduct rules, and this regulation does not violate the First Amendment. The advertisement violates rule 4-7.2(b)(3) because it characterizes the quality of the lawyers' services. The court rejects the distinction between a lawyer's personal traits and the quality of legal services, reasoning that to a client, advertising a 'pit bull' lawyer implies a promise of vicious representation. The ad also violates rule 4-7.2(b)(4) because the pit bull imagery is not 'objectively relevant' to selecting an attorney and is 'manipulative' and 'misleading.' Given the breed's negative public reputation for viciousness, the imagery suggests unethical, combative tactics that are unverifiable and contrary to professional standards. The First Amendment does not protect this type of advertising because its protections extend only to commercial speech that provides accurate, verifiable factual information. Unlike verifiable facts such as fees or areas of practice, the pit bull imagery is an unverifiable statement of opinion or quality intended to manipulate consumers, falling outside the scope of protected speech as defined by Supreme Court precedents like Bates and Zauderer.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between permissible, informative attorney advertising and impermissible, misleading advertising that relies on imagery and slogans. It empowers state bars to regulate advertisements that they believe demean the legal profession or promote an unprofessional, 'win-at-all-costs' image to the public. The ruling reinforces the principle that First Amendment protection for lawyer advertising is limited, particularly when ads make unverifiable claims about the quality of services rather than providing objective, verifiable facts. This precedent gives bar associations substantial authority to prohibit symbolic or metaphorical advertising deemed undignified or harmful to the public's perception of the justice system.
