Page 29 - BOGmanual_2024October

Members of the House of Representatives Committee on Insurance
September 26, 2024
Page 4

Subsequent steps included:
• On February 8, 2009, the Louisiana Supreme Court postponed the effective date of the new rules
to October 1, 2009, to allow the LSBA and the Court to further study the proposed Rules in light
of the constitutional challenges set forth in Public Citizen;
• In response to a March 11, 2009, request by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the LSBA’s RPC
Committee reviewed several of the challenged new rules;
• On April 15, 2009, the RPC Committee recommended adoption of the majority of the Louisiana
Rules but recommended certain modifications, making some rules more stringent and others less
so; and
• The Louisiana Supreme Court, on June 4, 2009, adopted the recommendations and reiterated
October 1, 2009, as the effective date of the new rules.

On August 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court denied defendant Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board’s
Motion to Dismiss, asserting a lack of jurisdiction. It then granted partial summary judgment to the
plaintiffs and partial summary judgment to the defendants. The five plaintiffs appealed one of the three
summary judgment rulings, maintaining that six sub-parts of Rule 7.2(c) constituted unconstitutional
restrictions on commercial speech.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on January 31, 2011, issued its opinion (copy
attached) and upheld the District Court’s ruling on:
• Rule 7.2(c)(1)(E), which prohibits communications that promise results, citing “A promise that
a party will prevail in a future case is necessarily false and deceptive. No attorney can guarantee
future results;”
• Rule 7.2(c)(1)(I), which uses actors to portray clients or reenactments of events without a
disclaimer; and
• Rule 7.2(c)(1)(L), which prohibits use of a nickname or motto that states or implies an ability to
obtain results.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court and found in favor of the plaintiffs with regard to:
• Rule 7.2(c)(1)(D) – Contain a reference or testimonial to past successes or results;
• Rule 7.2(c)(1)(J) – Includes a portrayal of a judge or jury; and
• Rule 7.2(c)(10) – Requiring a disclaimer under the Louisiana Rules using certain minimum font
size, speed of speech and both spoken and written disclaimers in televised or electronic
advertisements.

From our review of the archived video of the September 6, 2024, meeting of the House Committee on
Insurance, the Supreme Court was likewise criticized for not attending the meeting. As was
communicated by Chair Michael “Gabe” Firment in the Committee meeting, Louisiana Supreme Court
Chief Justice John L. Weimer, on August 21, 2024, sent a lengthy letter (attached) to House Committee
on Insurance Chair Rep. Firment in response to the invitation extended to the Court. This letter explained
the Court’s considerable efforts regarding the regulation of lawyer advertising and how the State’s ability
to regulate such advertising is limited by both Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) and
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, 632 F. 3d 212 (2011). The letter also
invited legislators to the Court to meet with the Justices to “continue this important conversation.”