Case Title: Mezrano v. Alabama State Bar

Citation: 434 So. 2d 732

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1983-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
434 So. 2d 732 (1983)
Louis A. MEZRANO
v.
The ALABAMA STATE BAR.
81-1069.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 8, 1983.
Rehearing and Motions to Correct and Supplement Opinion Denied June 10, 1983.
*733 William E. Swatek, Pelham, for appellant.
John A. Yung IV, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Alabama State Bar, Montgomery, for appellee.
FAULKNER, Justice.
This case involves an action brought by the Alabama State Bar against a practicing attorney, Louis A. Mezrano, for failing to comply with the disciplinary rules regulating advertising by attorneys. The first charge alleges that Mezrano failed to include in his advertisement the disclaimer required by Disciplinary Rule (DR) 2-102(A)(7)(f). The second charge alleges that Mezrano failed to deliver or mail to the General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar a true copy of his advertisement within three days of the date on which it was first published, as required by DR 2-102(A)(7)(e). The third charge alleges that Mezrano was engaged in private practice under a misleading name at the time he published the advertisement, thus violating DR 2-102(B).
Mezrano, a licensed lawyer since 1967, filed an answer to the disciplinary charges, admitting the factual allegations contained in the charges, but asserting that the Disciplinary Rules under which he was charged violate the freedom of speech and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution.
*734 At the Disciplinary Board hearing Mezrano testified that he had done business under the name "University Legal Center" for about two months, and that he had published the disputed advertisement in newspapers of general circulation in Jefferson County on two or three occasions in addition to the one specified in the disciplinary charges. Mezrano also testified that he had previously been associated with another legal clinic which had sponsored certain advertising that had been considered by the Bar Association as a violation of the rules governing lawyer advertising. Further, Mezrano admitted that when he placed the advertisement which formed the basis of the present charges against him, he was aware that the advertisement violated the provisions of the Alabama Code of Professional Responsibility.
On August 13, 1982, the Disciplinary Board found Mezrano guilty of all three charges against him and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of 120 days, to become effective 42 days after the date the Supreme Court of Alabama enters its order of suspension in this matter.
The issue presented on appeal is whether disciplinary rules 2-102(A)(7)(f), 2-102(A)(7)(e) and 2-102(B) of the Alabama State Bar are invalid restrictions upon freedom of speech as applied to Mezrano's advertisement and thus violative of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We will discuss each disciplinary rule separately.
Mezrano contends that the requirement of DR 2-102(A)(7)(f), that lawyer advertisements contain a specified disclaimer, is an unconstitutional infringement upon commercial free speech. Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A)(7)(f) provides the following:
Mezrano claims that his advertisement met the requirements of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1977). In Bates, the United States Supreme Court stated that price advertising of routine legal services was constitutionally protected. Mezrano, like Bates, advertised routine legal services; however, he admittedly did not include the disclaimer required by DR 2-102(A)(7)(f) in his advertisement.
We are of the opinion that this disclaimer requirement is constitutional. The United States Supreme Court in Bates stated:
The Bates court also stated:
The U.S. Supreme Court again examined the matter of lawyer advertising in the recent case of In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S. Ct. 929, 71 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1982). The appellant lawyer in R.M.J., had been found guilty of violating several advertising provisions of the Missouri Canons of Professional Responsibility, including a requirement that lawyer advertisements include a specified disclaimer of certification of expertise following any listing of specific areas of practice. Although no challenge was made to the constitutionality of the disclaimer requirement, the Court did note that the Bates decision suggested the use of disclaimer requirements to protect the public from misleading lawyer advertising. The Court noted:
We opine that Mezrano should have included the disclaimer in his advertisement as required by disciplinary rule 2-102(A)(7)(f). The Alabama Bar Association has no rating system. Applicants for bar admission in this state do not receive their scores on the bar examination if they pass. The Alabama Bar does not identify attorneys as specialists. Therefore, we feel that attorneys' representations about the quality of their legal services could very well mislead the public. Upon passing the bar examination, all attorneys are presumed to be on an equal footing. Thus, the Alabama State Bar could reasonably conclude that attorneys should not hold themselves out as being superior to other attorneys when there is no rating system in this state.
Mezrano also contends that the requirement of Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A)(7)(e), that copies of all lawyer advertisements be sent to the General Counsel of the State Bar within 3 days of first publication, violates the constitutional guarantee of commercial free speech. Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A)(7)(e) provides the following:
Mezrano claims that requiring him to submit a copy of the advertisement within three days of publication is a "prior restraint" on speech, even though its submission is not required until after it is published. The Alabama State Bar asserts, however, that this requirement is a reasonable one which allows the State Bar to spot advertisements that are inherently or potentially deceptive and take steps to stop the misleading advertisements or to warn the public about them. We agree with the State Bar. The benefits gained by examining all attorney advertisements shortly after their first publication outweighs the minimal burden of this procedure.
We note that a similar procedure of supervising attorney advertising was suggested *736 by the United States Supreme Court in In Re: R.M.J., supra. The Court stated:
The Advisory Committee serves the same function in Missouri as the General Counsel of the State Bar serves in Alabama. Thus, we opine that the requirements of DR 2-102(A)(7)(e) are consistent with the procedure suggested by the United States Supreme Court.
Mezrano finally contends that the absolute prohibition in Disciplinary Rule 2-102(B) of a lawyer's practicing under a trade name is in violation of the constitutional protection of commercial free speech. DR 2-102(B) provides the following:
Mezrano claims that his advertisement under the name "University Legal Center"[1] is not misleading and that the Alabama State Bar suggested no substantial interest in the prohibition.
We note, however, that Mezrano's office is located on University Boulevard in very close proximity to the University of Alabama in Birmingham and that he is not affiliated with the University. We feel that the general public may associate Mezrano with the University due to the name of the "legal center" and its location, thus being misled as to his identity. This use of the name is in violation of DR 2-102(B).
As to the Alabama State Bar's substantial interest in the prohibition, it should be noted that DR 2-102(B) was adopted verbatim from the model code of professional responsibility of the American Bar Association. Furthermore, as stated in Bates, supra, advertising that is deceptive or misleading is subject to restraint.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
[1]  This Court was informed in oral argument that Mezrano was no longer using the name "University Legal Center."