The Virginia State Bar issued a public admonition to a lawyer for discussing his cases but not having a disclaimer that states that the case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case and that case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case. Story, Washington Post. The Virginia rule requires the communication to precede the communication of the case results. How exactly you're supposed to do that on a blog is unclear, unless you have to parrot the same disclaimer every time you talk about a case. The disclaimer shall be in bold face type and uppercase letters in a font size that is at least as large as the largest text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results and in the same color and against the same colored background as the text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results. That's just ugly. Besides, it's stupid. ALL CAPS LOOK BAD, AND WHEN THEY'RE ACCUMULATED TOGETHER IN A WALL OF TEXT PEOPLE WILL PROBABLY DISREGARD THEM ANYWAY.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is unconstitutional. They can't seem to tell the difference between advertising and blogging. Every blog you do about your own cases is not an advertisement. For instance, I seldom blog about my cases. Mostly that's because my cases aren't very interesting. About the only exception is the stuff I handle for Bananaberry Enterprises and its board members (including O. Julius Bananaberry). Those cases can be very interesting, and Mr. Bananaberry has no objection to me talking about his cases. He trusts my judgment better than he trusts his own. And that's a good characteristic I wish more clients had. Another problem is getting the clients' permission. They usually don't want their cases publicized any more than necessary. One way out of that, of course, is to disguise the name--where possible. In fact, in one case involving juveniles, the blogger did exactly that. He gave the participants pseudonyms. I understand the lawyer is planning to appeal this. He should. It's very likely unconstitutional and certainly a bad idea.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is unconstitutional. They can't seem to tell the difference between advertising and blogging. Every blog you do about your own cases is not an advertisement. For instance, I seldom blog about my cases. Mostly that's because my cases aren't very interesting. About the only exception is the stuff I handle for Bananaberry Enterprises and its board members (including O. Julius Bananaberry). Those cases can be very interesting, and Mr. Bananaberry has no objection to me talking about his cases. He trusts my judgment better than he trusts his own. And that's a good characteristic I wish more clients had. Another problem is getting the clients' permission. They usually don't want their cases publicized any more than necessary. One way out of that, of course, is to disguise the name--where possible. In fact, in one case involving juveniles, the blogger did exactly that. He gave the participants pseudonyms. I understand the lawyer is planning to appeal this. He should. It's very likely unconstitutional and certainly a bad idea.
I don't know if I'm going to honor that or not. I guess that's a bridge I'll cross if I ever blog about results in my own cases.
RSS Feed
