I was surprised and disappointed to hear that Ben Cowgill's Legal Ethics Blog has been so quiet because the Kentucky State Bar has been deciding whether to treat the blog as advertising that would require Ben to pay $50 for each post or edit to to a post. (more at Volokh and f/k/a EthicalEsq, who has instructions on how to politely contact the Bar and let them know how you feel on this issue).
When he started his blog, Ben communicated with the Kentucky State Bar to make sure they had no problems with the blog -- which is the ethical approach that epitomizes Ben's legal practice.
I am pretty certain that under California's rule, my posts are neither "communications" nor "solicitations" because I am most certainly not signaling my availability for professional employment.
Here's hoping that the Kentucky Bar takes this chance to quickly modernize its rules and its approach. Treating Ben's blog as advertising makes no sense, is probably unconstitutional, and will drag bar regulations into disrepute.
UPDATE: Although the blog in question is not a direct pitch for new clients, it now seems to me that it probably falls within a broad definition of advertising. If, however, the state bar is going to define advertising that broadly, it should tailor its regulations more narrowly and precisely.
"...will drag bar regulations into disrepute."
Not that you probably don't know this, but based on what the bar refers to as "ethics", to the average thinking American (and most of the unthinking ones), the bar in total (regulations included) is already in pretty serious disrepute. There's not a whole lot of room for more, so what's the big deal?
Posted by: Deoxy | June 08, 2005 at 10:01 AM
That sounds like an unreasonable restraint on speech, if you ask me.
Posted by: David Hricik | June 08, 2005 at 12:31 PM
Deoxy: How about "futher into disrepute"?
Posted by: John Steele | June 08, 2005 at 03:53 PM