Why not allow quotes unless they are in fact misleading? I don’t see the inherentness of it. I’ve seen quotes that are right on the money and some that are misleading.
Just publish the full opinion and use this handy PDF tool called “highlight text” to call out the section you’d like to draw your reader’s attention to…or make the print of that section bigger or bolder or in bright green…not hard at all. The issue is whether the advertisement contains a prohibited judicial testimonial…a lone quote praising the attorney’s work looks like a judicial testimonial to the public and this rule is designed to safeguard the public…quit making a case for why people (including judges) hate attorneys
There’s little question using judicial quotes in ads meets the bar for “inherently deceptive.”
But this Guideline isn’t a disclosure requirement - it’s a prohibition on speech (and likely an overbroad one, at that). And to make matters worse, the court completely blew the analysis of how disclosure requirements are supposed to be applied. What a mess. I hope it gets taken up on appeal.
There’s little question that judicial quotes that are used out of context are inherently deceptive. If they are presented as intended however then that is a different story. If one means to complement me by saying that “I did a good job” then it’s not inherently deceptive for me to state that absent he rest of the writing. However if someone means to criticize me by saying I did a good job making an ass of myself then it’s deceptive for me to state that the person said “I did a good job”. It’s a case by case analysis, not simply inherent.
If the judge does not mean to endorse the firm or lawyer, it’s deceptive to take something he said in another context and use it for a testimonial directed at prospective clients. The whole point of speech and opinions is that the person making the statement can take it back at any time. Being notified that they do not want you distributing a past compliment is the same as taking it back. It doesn’t get more arrogant than acting like he’s entitled to use the compliment however he wants for however long he wants without including the entire document showing the limitations of the compliment.
“If the judge does not mean to endorse the firm or lawyer, it’s deceptive to take something he said in another context and use it for a testimonial directed at prospective clients.”
Not necessarily. Suppose the court is called on to award attorney’s fee, which many statutes provide for. The judge is required by his job to pass on the application and determine whether the requested fee is reasonable. The decision often goes into both the quality and efficiency of the lawyers’ work.
I once had a fee application where the other side complained of everything—too high rates, too many hours, two lawyers on the case, etc., etc. The judge rejected all these arguments—he said we were highly experienced attorneys in that area of law, had done a good quality job, were very efficient with hours, and our rates were competitive with similar practitioners in the district. All of this ends up in a published opinion in the federal supplement.
The quality and efficiency of our work was found by a court to be high, and the court awarded money to our client based on that, which is part of the judicial function on a fee application.
So what is deceptive about my repeating the interesting portions on my firm’s website?
What’s deceptive about it is that the judge did not intend that you would behave that way in another prospective client’s cause. Did not intend to endorse you in general to a future client. But in the case at issue, it’s mostly deceptive because the judge took back his favorable compliments by asking that it be removed from advertising. It means he does not feel that way about the lawyer outside the context of that limited ruling. So the deception begins when the judge refuses to have his words placed as a testimonial directed to prospective clients and the lawyer disregards it as if a past compliment is written in stone and can be used as a present one.
SANTANA—sorry, I disagree. It WOULD be deceptive if someone said that Judge X endorsed them. It is not deceptive to say Judge X ruled that their fees in a case were reasonable. Most clients are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between the two.
As for the judge “taking back his compliments” that is not true. The judge made a ruling. That is his job—what the public pays him to do. In order to award fees, the judge had to find that the fees were reasonable, and that usually includes subsidiary findings about the lawyers’ rates, billable time and competence in the case. Does the judge’s ruling still stand? Did he discover some new facts that made him retract the ruling? No, he didn’t.
The fact is that in one case a court reviewed the firm’s work and found it competent and the rates reasonable, enough to require the other side to pay those fees. That fact can be truly and non-deceptively presented to potential future clients. That the judge did not “intend” that he be quoted that way is neither here nor there. Does the judge stand by his ruling or not?
The bottom line here is that there is a difference between a ruling and testimonial, and most people understand the difference. No reason, IMO, that a lawyer cannot truthfully present the former.
LawLOL said:
It seems like common sense to take a judge’s comment off your website if he writes a letter asking you to do so. Why waste the goodwill?
Posted: Sep 25, 2013 01:25 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Smeliot said:
Couldn’t the lawyer simply place a link to a PDF of the opinion on his website? That doesn’t sound like it would be very burdensome.
Posted: Sep 25, 2013 01:52 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
SME said:
Why not allow quotes unless they are in fact misleading? I don’t see the inherentness of it. I’ve seen quotes that are right on the money and some that are misleading.
Posted: Sep 25, 2013 03:08 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
H. Richard Penn said:
In light of the controversy, judges will likely refrain from including lawyer compliments in their opinions, thus resolving the problem.
Posted: Sep 25, 2013 04:13 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Stephanie said:
Just publish the full opinion and use this handy PDF tool called “highlight text” to call out the section you’d like to draw your reader’s attention to…or make the print of that section bigger or bolder or in bright green…not hard at all. The issue is whether the advertisement contains a prohibited judicial testimonial…a lone quote praising the attorney’s work looks like a judicial testimonial to the public and this rule is designed to safeguard the public…quit making a case for why people (including judges) hate attorneys
Posted: Sep 25, 2013 05:56 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Josh King said:
There’s little question using judicial quotes in ads meets the bar for “inherently deceptive.”
But this Guideline isn’t a disclosure requirement - it’s a prohibition on speech (and likely an overbroad one, at that). And to make matters worse, the court completely blew the analysis of how disclosure requirements are supposed to be applied. What a mess. I hope it gets taken up on appeal.
Posted: Sep 26, 2013 12:15 am CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
SME said:
There’s little question that judicial quotes that are used out of context are inherently deceptive. If they are presented as intended however then that is a different story. If one means to complement me by saying that “I did a good job” then it’s not inherently deceptive for me to state that absent he rest of the writing. However if someone means to criticize me by saying I did a good job making an ass of myself then it’s deceptive for me to state that the person said “I did a good job”. It’s a case by case analysis, not simply inherent.
Posted: Sep 26, 2013 12:55 am CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Holmes said:
This is great - judges complaining about quotations taken out of context!
Because that will deceive the public, no less!
Posted: Sep 26, 2013 08:45 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Santana said:
If the judge does not mean to endorse the firm or lawyer, it’s deceptive to take something he said in another context and use it for a testimonial directed at prospective clients. The whole point of speech and opinions is that the person making the statement can take it back at any time. Being notified that they do not want you distributing a past compliment is the same as taking it back. It doesn’t get more arrogant than acting like he’s entitled to use the compliment however he wants for however long he wants without including the entire document showing the limitations of the compliment.
Posted: Oct 05, 2013 06:45 am CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Tal Benschar said:
“If the judge does not mean to endorse the firm or lawyer, it’s deceptive to take something he said in another context and use it for a testimonial directed at prospective clients.”
Not necessarily. Suppose the court is called on to award attorney’s fee, which many statutes provide for. The judge is required by his job to pass on the application and determine whether the requested fee is reasonable. The decision often goes into both the quality and efficiency of the lawyers’ work.
I once had a fee application where the other side complained of everything—too high rates, too many hours, two lawyers on the case, etc., etc. The judge rejected all these arguments—he said we were highly experienced attorneys in that area of law, had done a good quality job, were very efficient with hours, and our rates were competitive with similar practitioners in the district. All of this ends up in a published opinion in the federal supplement.
The quality and efficiency of our work was found by a court to be high, and the court awarded money to our client based on that, which is part of the judicial function on a fee application.
So what is deceptive about my repeating the interesting portions on my firm’s website?
Posted: Oct 16, 2013 04:18 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Santana said:
What’s deceptive about it is that the judge did not intend that you would behave that way in another prospective client’s cause. Did not intend to endorse you in general to a future client. But in the case at issue, it’s mostly deceptive because the judge took back his favorable compliments by asking that it be removed from advertising. It means he does not feel that way about the lawyer outside the context of that limited ruling. So the deception begins when the judge refuses to have his words placed as a testimonial directed to prospective clients and the lawyer disregards it as if a past compliment is written in stone and can be used as a present one.
Posted: Oct 18, 2013 07:14 am CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Tal Benschar said:
SANTANA—sorry, I disagree. It WOULD be deceptive if someone said that Judge X endorsed them. It is not deceptive to say Judge X ruled that their fees in a case were reasonable. Most clients are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between the two.
As for the judge “taking back his compliments” that is not true. The judge made a ruling. That is his job—what the public pays him to do. In order to award fees, the judge had to find that the fees were reasonable, and that usually includes subsidiary findings about the lawyers’ rates, billable time and competence in the case. Does the judge’s ruling still stand? Did he discover some new facts that made him retract the ruling? No, he didn’t.
The fact is that in one case a court reviewed the firm’s work and found it competent and the rates reasonable, enough to require the other side to pay those fees. That fact can be truly and non-deceptively presented to potential future clients. That the judge did not “intend” that he be quoted that way is neither here nor there. Does the judge stand by his ruling or not?
The bottom line here is that there is a difference between a ruling and testimonial, and most people understand the difference. No reason, IMO, that a lawyer cannot truthfully present the former.
Posted: Oct 18, 2013 03:36 pm CDT
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation