Opinion ID: 38
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsection 1200.50(c)(1): Client Testimonials

Text: This subsection prohibits advertisements that include an endorsement of, or testimonial about, a lawyer or law firm from a client with respect to a matter that is still pending. N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs., tit. 22, § 1200.50(c)(1). The Task Force Report observed that testimonials can be misleading because they may suggest that past results indicate future performance. (Task Force Report 26-27) The Task Force Report, however, did not recommend outright prohibitions of all testimonials on this basis. Instead, as the District Court observed, the Task Force Report recommended a different approach. Alexander, 634 F.Supp.2d at 249. The Report suggested strengthening the rules governing testimonials to prohibit the use of an actor or spokesperson who is not a member or employee of the advertising lawyer or law firm absent disclosure thereof.  (Task Force Report 27) (emphasis added). The Task Force noted, moreover, that it would be an improper restriction on a client's free speech rights to prohibit client testimonials outright. ( Id. ) The Task Force Report therefore does not support Defendants' assertion that prohibiting testimonials from current clients will materially advance an interest in preventing misleading advertising. Indeed, the Report contradicts, rather than strengthens, the Board's submissions. Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 772, 113 S.Ct. 1792. Nor does consensus or common sense support the conclusion that client testimonials are inherently misleading. Testimonials may, for example, mislead if they suggest that past results indicate future performance  but not all testimonials will do so, especially if they include a disclaimer. The District Court properly concluded that Defendants failed to satisfy this prong of Central Hudson with respect to client testimonials.