Rubenstein v. Fla. Bar
Decision Date | 08 December 2014 |
Docket Number | Case No. 14–CIV–20786. |
Citation | 72 F.Supp.3d 1298 |
Parties | Robert RUBENSTEIN and Rubenstein Law, P.A., Plaintiffs, v. The FLORIDA BAR and Arlene K. Sankel, in her official capacity as Chief Branch Discipline Counsel of the Miami Branch of The Florida Bar, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Gregory A. Beck, Gupta, Beck, PLLC, Washington, DC, Robert Kent Burlington, Daniel Frederick Blonsky, Coffey Burlington, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Barry Scott Richard, Michael Howard Moody, Greenberg Traurig, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [28] (the “Motion”), filed by Plaintiffs Robert Rubenstein and Rubenstein Law, P.A. (“Plaintiffs” or “Rubenstein”). Defendants The Florida Bar and Arlene K. Sankel (“Defendants” or the “Bar”) timely responded, ECF No. [36] (the “Response”), and Plaintiffs timely replied, ECF No. [38]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing filings and submissions, and the record in the case. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Through this action, Plaintiffs challenge on First Amendment grounds, certain rules and guidelines concerning attorney advertising designed and implemented by the Bar. As a result, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
ECF No. [29–2] Exh. 1, The Florida Bar Joint Presidential Advertising Task Force, Final Report & Recommendations (May 1997) (“1997 Task Force Report”) at 13–14. Most “computer-accessed communications,” such as attorney or law-firm websites and unsolicited email communications, were separately regulated and did not contain the blanket ban on the use of past results. 1997 Task Force Report at 24–25, 27. The Task Force's findings were based on a multipart study, which included surveys, focus groups and data analysis, but the Report did not link its position and recommendations regarding past results advertising to any specific data or findings. See ECF No. [29–2] Exhs. 2, 3 (1997 Task Force Survey Results and Executive Summary). In 1999, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted the proposed rules. See Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar–Advertising Rules, 762 So.2d 392 (Fla.1999).
In 2004, the Bar recommended only minor changes to its rules pertaining to attorney advertising. Thereafter, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Florida directed the Bar to “undertake an additional and contemporary study of lawyer advertising, which shall include public evaluation and comments about lawyer advertising.” In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar—Advertising, 971 So.2d 763, 765 (Fla.2007). The Bar presented its petition to comprehensively amend the rules in 2011. See ECF No. [29–3] Exh. 5, Petition to Amend the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar—Subchapter 4–7, Lawyer Advertising Rules (Jul. 5, 2011) (“2011 Petition”).
Rule 4–7.13(b)(2).1 The Rules do not restrict past results statements based on the advertising medium.
The 2011 Petition and the 2013 rule amendments resulted from internal and public study, comment and deliberation. See generally 2011 Petition. The Bar concluded that the new rules were “necessary to encourage the free flow of information to the public that is necessary for the selection of a lawyer.” Id. at 8. The Bar stated that its “primary goals” in regulating attorney advertising were:
Id. at 9–10. Justifying the new rules permitting the use of past results in advertising, the Bar highlighted that “The U.S. Supreme Court has generally struck down regulations restricting advertising truthful information;” that “[o]f those responding to the survey on public perception of lawyer advertising, 74% indicate that past results are an important attribute in choosing a lawyer[; i]t is clear that the public wants this information available to them;” and that “[m]ost of those Florida Bar members who provided written and oral comments also noted that the lawyer advertising rules should not prohibit truthful statements regarding past results.” Id. at 13–14. The Bar further explained that “there is no reason why any communications seeking legal employment should be treated differently based upon the medium of the advertising or whether the person requested the information.” Id. at 13.
Attorneys governed by the Rules are required to submit all non-exempt advertisements to the Bar for evaluation as to rule-compliance. Rule 4–7.19, Rules Reg. Fla. Bar (2013). An attorney may obtain an advisory opinion from the Bar concerning the compliance of a contemplated advertisement, but may also begin advertising prior to Bar review. Id. Advisory opinions “are advisory only and are not the basis for action by [the Bar's] grievance committees.” Florida Bar Procedures for Issuing Advisory Opinions Relating to Lawyer Advertising or Solicitation § 1 (2002) (“Opinion Procedures”). The Bar must advise the attorney as to its evaluation of all filed advertisement by issuing a Notice of Compliance or Notice of Noncompliance. Rule 4–7.19. The Bar may subsequently change its finding of compliance and must then provide Notification of Noncompliance. Id. A finding of compliance by the Bar is binding on the Bar in any subsequent grievance proceeding, such that a favorable opinion serves as a safe harbor, protecting the advertising attorney from discipline arising out of dissemination of the subject advertisement. Id. By contrast, the Rules provide that “[a] lawyer will be subject to discipline as provided in these rules for ... dissemination of a noncompliant advertisement in the absence of a finding of compliance by The Florida Bar.” Id. The Rules further provide that where a Notice of Noncompliance is issued, the Bar is required to “advise the lawyer that dissemination or continued dissemination of the advertisement may result in professional discipline.” Id.
Evaluation of attorney advertising submissions are handled by the Bar's Ethics and Advertising Department. Notices and opinions issued by the Ethics and Advertising Department under Rule 4–7.19 may be appealed to the Bar's Standing Committee on Advertising, and from there to the Bar's Board of Governors. Opinion Procedures §§ 3(c), 5(a).
The Bar's Lawyer Regulation Department is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of ethics complaints and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of South Miami v. DeSantis
...interest in requiring that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights no longer be violated ...."); see also Rubenstein v. Fla. Bar , 72 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1318-19 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ; League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning , 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2012) ("The vindication of cons......
-
McDonough v. Mata
...statute or regulation is unconstitutional as it has been applied to a litigant's particular speech activity." Rubenstein v. Florida Bar , 72 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quoting Legal Aid Servs. of Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp. , 608 F.3d 1084, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) ). As the Supr......
-
Fla. Beach Adver., LLC v. City of Treasure Island
...constitutional inquiry in an as-applied challenge is limited to the plaintiff's particular situation." Rubenstein v. Florida Bar, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citation omitted). Based on the pleadings and the instant Motion, Plaintiffs appear to base their allegations on the ......
-
City of South Miami v. Desantis
... ... assist[ing] the federal government in the enforcement of ... federal immigration laws within this state.” Fla. Stat ... § 908.101 (2019). On June 14, 2019, Governor DeSantis ... signed SB 168 into law and it was enacted as Chapter 908, ... in requiring that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights ... no longer be violated ... ”); see also ... Rubenstein v. Fla. Bar , 72 F.Supp.3d 1298, 1318-19 (S.D ... Fla. 2014); League of Women Voters of Fla. v ... Browning , 863 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1167 ... ...