Court Opinion

ID: 9759050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:01:34.010341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:58.598821
License: Public Domain

HANDLER, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This case involves a challenge to two provisions of New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) authorizing lawyers to advertise their services. I agree with the Court that the prohibition of RPC 7.2(a) against the “use of drawing, animations, dramatization, music and lyrics” in non-television attorney advertising violates the first amendment protection of commercial speech. I also agree with the Court’s rejection of the rule requiring that all attorney advertising be “dignified”. The dignity-in-advertising standard, in my view, was unsound and unconstitutional.
The Court now rules that New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct can authorize lawyer advertising only when it is “predominantly informational.” I entertain serious doubts that this affirmative requirement governing the content of attorney advertising is necessary or wise. Given the complexities of both lawyering and advertising, I am not confident that such a standard can be readily understood or fairly administered. Moreover, it is likely to be applied narrowly and restrictively, *554serving to censure advertising that is not misleading, confusing or deceptive. Because an information rule for advertising is problematic in terms of both constitutional law1 and sound public policy, I would not include it in our advertising regulations. I therefore dissent.
I.
Over the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has expounded the doctrine that the first amendment guarantee of commercial free speech assures attorneys, like other state-licensed professional persons, the right to advertise the availability of their services. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977). See generally Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980) (establishing a standard for evaluating the constitutionaity of restrictions on commercial speech).
*555In Zauderer, supra, the Court applied an analytical standard that creates substantial doubt about justifying blanket restrictions on non-deceptive lawyer advertising:
Our recent decisions involving commercial speech have been grounded in the faith that the free flow of commercial information is valuable enough to justify imposing on would-be regulators the cost of distinguishing the truthful from the false, the helpful from the misleading, and the harmless from the harmful. The value of the information presented in appellant’s advertising is no less than that contained in other forms of advertising — indeed, insofar as appellant’s advertising tended to acquaint persons with their legal rights who might otherwise be shut off from effective access to the legal system, it was undoubtedly more valuable than many other forms of advertising.[2] [Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 646, 105 S.Ct. at 2279, 85 L.Ed.2d at 669.]
According to the majority lawful advertising is that in which “factual information rationally related to the need for and selection of an attorney predominates” “in both quantity and quality” over other material in the advertisement. Ante at 516 n. 1, 528. Much about this “predominantly-informational” standard is unclear.3
The difficulties in application are manifold. The standard apparently requires the separation of “rational information” from “other matter,” clearly not an easy task. Assuming that the “rational information” appearing in an advertisement can *556be identified and segregated, it would appear nearly impossible to quantify that information in order to determine whether it “predominates over” other material. It is hard even to imagine objective standards for evaluating and then comparing the “quality” (whatever that term may mean in this context) of the “rational” with the “other,” presumably “irrational,” elements of an advertisement. Nor is the basic requirement of permissible or allowable information in an advertisement readily understood. Information that is “rationally related to the need for and selection of an attorney” is not self-defining, and undoubtedly will engender differing views. For this Court to expect a committee to know what is “rationally related” appears chimerical. These considerations suggest that the judgments that will be asked of the regulating committee as to the affirmative content of advertisements would best be left to attorneys and to the public.
Similar concerns were considered by the Supreme Court in Zauderer, supra, which invalidated under the first amendment Ohio’s discipline of an attorney on the basis of an advertisement that contained nondeceptive illustrations and legal advice. The Court reaffirmed the standard of evaluating restrictions on commercial speech:
Commercial speech that is not false or deceptive and does not concern unlawful activities ... may be restricted only in the service of a substantial governmental interest, and only through means that directly advance that interest. [Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 638, 105 S.Ct. at 2275, 85 L.Ed.2d at 664.]
Thus, for the Court affirmatively to require “predominantly-rational-informational” advertising, such a regulation must be found to be necessary either to eliminate false or misleading communications, or to further another substantial state interest. See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. at 2351, 65 L.Ed.2d at 351.
With respect to such a state interest, the Court asserts that the proposed regulation “assur[es] that citizens’ decisions about their need for counsel and their selection of counsel are rationally rather than emotionally determined.” Ante at 535. The *557Court then asserts that it is “apparent” that the regulation directly serves that interest. Ante at 538. The majority has asserted, but has made little effort to prove, that its standard calling for predominantly rational information can effectively further a substantial state interest. Moreover, there is a singular and dangerous risk entailed in the imposition of such a regulation. As noted both in this opinion and in the majority opinion, attorneys are already sharply restricted in communicating certain information — presumably “rational-information”— that would be important for consumers in making selections based on attorneys’ skills. See infra p. 560; ante at 526-527. The Court’s new “predominantly-rational-information” advertising standard is potentially inconsistent with existing strictures and therefore unlikely to promote the interest it purports to secure. Thus, the Supreme Court’s response to Ohio’s ban on illustrations on lawyer advertising could be applied in similar terms to the majority here:
The State’s arguments amount to little more than unsupported assertions: nowhere does the State cite any evidence or authority of any kind for its contention that the potential abuses associated with the use of illustrations in attorneys’ advertisement cannot be combatted by any means short of a blanket ban. [Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 648, 105 S.Ct. at 2281, 85 L.Ed.2d at 671.]
It is also clear that the requirement that attorney advertising be “predominantly informational” is not necessary to counter the evils of false or misleading speech. Another rule, RPC 7.1, specifically serves this purpose. This rule forbids the publication of attorney advertisements that contain material misrepresentations or omissions.4 See N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (forbidding “any person” to advertise by using “any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrep*558reservation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact”); 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that prohibits unfair or deception acts or practices).
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s standard to determine whether an advertisement is misleading is sufficiently comprehensive to obviate any additional refinement to purge an advertisement of untruthful, deceptive, or confusing elements. See R.M.J., 455 U.S. at 205-06, 102 S.Ct. at 938-39, 71 L.Ed.2d at 76 (a “relatively uninformative fact” in attorney’s advertisement may be improper because “it could be misleading,” not because it was “in bad taste”). In short, the purpose of RPC 7.2(a), as now pronounced by the Court, with its informational standard, is not to protect the public against attorney advertisements that are untruthful, deceptive, or confusing, which constitutes the primary basis for a restriction on free commercial speech.
I am satisfied that the requirement that attorney advertising of legal services be “predominantly informational” cannot be constitutionally justified. It does not further any substantial state interest nor is it essential to counteract public deception. On these grounds, this Court should not impose the informational requirement of RPC 7.2(a) but rather should be content with standards that prohibit false or misleading advertising.
II.
Even if the constitutionality of the informational standard were reasonably debatable, as a matter of public policy, there are strong and legitimate doubts about the majority’s informational requirement.
A.
Restrictions on advertising must be analyzed within a larger context. First, many individual citizens do not understand their legal rights, and often do not act on the rights they do understand. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 473 *559& n. 4, 98 S.Ct. 1925, 1927 & n. 4, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). See generally Galanter, “Reading the Landscape of Disputes,” 31 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 4 (1983). Second, advertising by lawyers benefits — and a restriction on advertising burdens — a particular sub-population. Large law firms and large or sophisticated economic actors do not need lawyer advertising. See McChesney, “Commercial Speech in the Professions: The Supreme Court’s Unanswered Questions and Questionable Answers,” 134 U.Pa.L.Rev. 45, 66-74 (1985) [hereinafter “Unanswered Questions”]. “It is smaller law firms that systematically use more of the promotional inputs traditionally banned by state bars.” Id. at 86; see id. at 86-90 (offering supporting data); id. at 91 (“The competitive implications of banning promotional inputs help explain a related phenomenon: large firms have vigorously opposed ending bans on advertising and solicitation despite the fact that they seem to have less interest in doing either”). We must recognize that the positions individuals take on lawyer advertising often reflect other disputes. Lawyer advertising deals not only with somewhat neutral matters like wills and divorces, but also with divisive matters like tort and worker compensation suits. There is some evidence that opposition to lawyer advertising comes from those affiliated with defending the suits that lawyer advertising might elicit. See Case Comment, 99 Harv.L.Rev. 193, 201 & n. 56 (1985) (reviewing Zauderer). See generally J. Auerbach, Unequal Justice (1976). Because of these partisan overtones, the court should be very cautious in imposing restrictions on lawyer advertising.5
*560Third, as the majority opinion concedes, advertising which is largely informational (without matters not “rationally related to attorney selection”) is also usually largely ignored. See ante at 524-525. To the extent that “rational information” must predominate over or submerge content or expression that appeals to the senses, an empirical confirmation that “informational” advertising may not be truly effective comes from the Zauderer case:
Undignified publicity is sometimes the only way to inform citizens of their legal rights. Whereas Zauderer’s arguably tasteless Dalton Shield advertisements attracted over 200 inquiries and led to 106 lawsuits, some of which may have been meritorious claims, the unillustrated, presumably more dignified version of his advertisement attracted no clients. [Case Comment, supra, 99 Harv.L.Rev. at 198-199.]
The majority concedes, ante at 524-525, that it is the irrational or emotional element of a lawyer’s advertisement that attracts customers. We should recognize that to the extent that we limit the use of “non-informational” or “irrational” expressions,6 we are preventing clients (and, arguably, a certain class of clients) from learning about their rights and acting upon them.
Fourth, as the majority recognizes, ante at 526-527, the combination of the absence of a comprehensive state certification program for lawyers, the current Rules of Professional Conduct, and the nature of legal practice effectively prevent *561lawyer advertising from presenting a truly rational or fully informational basis on which consumers can select legal representation. Lawyers are not able to, or not allowed to, present their skills and qualifications to the public in such a way that consumers could make their selections “on the merits.”7 Thus, the minimizing of “non-informational” or “irrational” elements in lawyer advertising will do little or nothing to allow consumers to make an informed and rational choice.
B.
We must also be apprehensive about the difficult, seemingly endless, and potentially arbitrary regulatory exercises that will be occasioned by the attempted enforcement of the predominantly informational requirement.
The Supreme Court in Bates explained that attorneys obtain the right to advertise their services because the public gains advantages by access to such commercial information.
The listener’s interest is substantial: the consumer’s concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue. Moreover, significant societal interests are served by such speech. Advertising though entirely commercial, may often carry information of import to significant issues of the day. * * * [Commercial speech * * * thus performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources in a free enterprise system. [433 U.S. at 364, 97 S.Ct. at 2699, 53 L.Ed.2d at 823]
Our own Court has similarly recognized the importance of the “public’s right to be informed * * * of the availability, nature, and prices of legal services.” In re Felmeister, 95 N.J. 431, 436 (1984).
The general public has relatively few opportunities to learn of the need for and availability of legal representation. As Justice Larsen aptly observed in a similar context, “many of the [other] traditional points of contact between lawyers and potential clients * * * are simply not viable sources of preliminary legal *562information for a great segment of our population.” Committee on Professional Ethics v. Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d 565, 576 (Iowa 1984) (Larsen, J., dissenting), vacated, 472 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 2693, 86 L.Ed.2d 710 (1985), on remand, 377 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1985), appeal dismissed, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1626, 90 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986). The Bates decision itself described the extent of insulation of the general public from attorneys, finding that many persons economically situated in “the middle 70% of our population * * * [are] not being reached or served adequately by the legal profession.” 433 U.S. at 376, 97 S.Ct. at 2705, 53 L.Ed.2d at 831, quoting ABA, Revised Handbook on Prepaid Legal Services 2 (1972).
Public access to legal services can be discouraged by unnecessary restrictions on attorney advertising. Recent research demonstrates that the more free and unencumbered is such attorney advertising the more it “tends to lower prices, stimulate competition, and *’ * * enable millions of Americans to find an affordable attorney who can help them resolve or represent legal problems.” See Federal Trade Commission Staff, Improving Consumer Access to Legal Services: The Case For Removing Restrictions on Truthful Advertising ix (November 1984); see also Ohralik, supra, 436 U.S. at 474-76, 98 S.Ct. at 1928-29, 56 L.Ed.2d at 465-66 (Marshall, J., concurring) (discussing how prohibitions on advertising discriminate against less privileged suppliers, and consumers, of legal services). Thus, the very group of middle-class people who were intended beneficiaries of Virginia Pharmacy, Bates, R.M.J., and Zauderer might become unintended victims of a regulatory standard that smothers the effective dissemination of commercial information. The predominantly informational standard could easily stifle the salutary communication to the consuming public about the availability of legal services. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court considered certain attorney advertise*563ments to determine whether their message and manner of presentation disserved the public.8 The Connecticut court held *564that these advertisements served to “inform the listener of the value of professional legal assistance in certain situations and make known that [lawyers, there] the defendants^] are willing and able to provide such services. * * * [These advertisements] are informative and in no way misleading or deceptive.” Grievance Comm. v. Trantolo, 192 Conn. 15, 470 A.2d 228, 234 (1984).
The Connecticut court in Trantolo believed that these advertisements were “informative” but did not consider whether they were “predominantly informational.” Rather, it focused expressly on whether they were untruthful, deceptive, or confusing. One could be skeptical that such “informative” advertising would satisfy this Court’s seemingly more exacting and burdensome standard of “predominantly informational.” The advertisements at issue in the Connecticut case thus illustrate the enormous difficulties that lawyers, disciplinary boards, and judges would encounter in applying the predominantly informational standard to regulate such commercial speech.
It seems to me that the evaluation of an advertisement will depend on one’s tolerance for or distaste of a subject matter that has an “emotional” appeal. Consequently, personal predilections will inevitably intrude in any characterization of advertising. It is probable that the administration of this requirement will generate unending controversy and chronic inconsistency.
I am doubtful that there is anything approaching a consensus that an informational standard, as proposed in the Court’s new rule, serves the cause of attorneys or is required by the public interest. The important point that emerges, in my view, is that unless the advertisement is false, misleading, or confusing, its informational content should not be considered relevant as a *565regulatory standard any more than its dignity, tastefulness or style. A court should not have to fret about whether an advertisement appeals more to the heart than the mind. Instead, it should concentrate on whether an attorney’s advertisement may effectively serve the public by alerting some consumers to a previously unsuspected need for legal help and by fixing in their memory a way to learn about and obtain legal services. Moreover, one may legitimately doubt the necessity as well as the efficacy of a predominantly informational test for advertising. It is unlikely that attorneys will be able to engage with impunity in either blatantly irrational, uninformative, obnoxious or offensive advertising, even if our regulations did not affirmatively include an informational requirement. As observed in Trantolo, supra, 470 A.2d at 234, “[i]f some members of the audience find * * * [the advertisements] distasteful, such consumers might very well react by shunning the service offered, thereby implying an informed sanction more effective than any formal regulation.”
There are telling concerns that strongly militate against the adoption and attempted enforcement of a standard that lawyers advertise their legal services in a “predominantly informational” manner. That standard, I believe, is too amorphous and controversial and, further, is not moored to any significant state interest. I am satisfied that even were there considerable doubt that the first amendment forbids such a regulatory restriction on commercial speech, the standard now proposed by the Court should be discarded because it is ill-advised as a matter of public policy.
III.
For the reasons expressed, I would dispense with any affirmative regulatory requirement concerning the content of attorney advertisement of legal services, and, instead, would insist only that such advertising not be misleading, confusing or false. Therefore, on this point, I dissent.
*566Justice GARIBALDI joins in this opinion.
For modification — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, POLLOCK and O’HERN — 4.
Concurring in part; dissenting in part — Justices HANDLER and GARIBALDI — 2.

The court declines to address the constitutionality of its present rule under the New Jersey Constitution, despite the fact that the state constitution had been invoked by petitioner. See ante at 517 n. 3. This is unfortunate. Given the strong protection our state constitution gives to speech, see, e.g., State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982), it is at least open to question whether some of the restrictions of commercial speech upheld under the federal constitution might be invalid under the New Jersey Constitution. See Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2968, 92 L.Ed.2d 266 (1986); id. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 2982, 92 L.Ed.2d at 287 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (characterizing the restrictions upheld in Posadas as government attempts "to manipulate private behavior by depriving citizens of truthful information concerning lawful activities"); see also Case Comment, 100 Harv.L.Rev. 172 (1986) (reviewing Posadas) (characterizing the Posadas opinion as creating a basis for eroding first amendment protections for commercial speech).

2On the issue of a “dignity" standard for attorney advertising, the Court stated:
More fundamentally, although the State undoubtedly has a substantia] interest in ensuring that its attorneys behave with dignity and decorum in the courtroom, we are unsure that the State’s desire that attorneys maintain their dignity in their communications with the public is an interest substantial enough to justify the abridgement of their First Amendment rights. [Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 647-648, 105 S.Ct. at 2280, 85 L.Ed.2d at 670.]

The majority deflects criticism about the difficulties in its proposed regulation by pointing to the tentative and experimental nature of the regulations and attorneys’ ability to gain advisory opinions from the Committee on Attorney Advertising before publishing. See ante at 546-547, 550-551. However, given that problems of vagueness and subjectivity are deeply imbedded in the new standard, the Court’s action may be considered an improvident delegation of powers to the committee — -an invitation to inconsistent, arbitrary, and, inevitably, unconstitutional regulations of attorney free speech.

RPC 7.1 also contains a specific ban on advertising that creates an unjustified expectation of results,, a prohibition against comparison pf the advertiser’s services to those offered by other lawyers, and a limit on the information that may be published concerning fees. These specific proscriptions are only illustrative, and do not exhaustively identify the circumstances that may make communications subject to sanction. See Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising (supplement to N.J.L.J., 5 May 1981) at 5.

See "Unanswered Questions", supra, at 118-19:
[The Supreme] Court has failed to consider a point raised by lawyers, judges, and other commentators: the possibility that promotional restrictions have much less to do with protecting consumers than with hobbling those professionals to whom promotion is particularly useful____ The Court noted in Bates that "cynicism with regard to the [legal] profession may be created by the fact that it long has publicly eschewed advertising, *560while condoning the actions of an attorney who structures his social or civic associations so as to provide contacts with potential clients." ____
[S]tated concerns about deception may mask predatory reasons for traditional restrictions on promotion. If it is in some professionals' interest to advertise or solicit, it may be in their competitors' interest to prevent advertising and solicitation. Given that small-firm and less-established lawyers find advertising, solicitation and referral fees more useful than others do, there can be no question that the bar's traditional restrictions on promotion have hurt these two groups of attorneys. [ (Footnotes omitted) (quoting Bates, 433 U.S. at 370-71, 97 S.Ct. at 2702).]

And to the extent that even lawyer advertisement that could technically fit the majority’s standards is chilled by the ambiguity and subjectivity of those ' standards, see ante at 517-518.

Were a lawyer to try to do so, he would be exposed to charges of puffing, overreaching, and exaggeration, if not worse. See, e.g., RPC 7.1.

It described the advertisements in some detail.
"The four commercials which were viewed by the court at the hearing may be designated for case of reference as the ‘Divorce Case’, ‘Mumbo Jumbo’, ‘Accident Case’ and ‘Bankruptcy Case’ advertisement, respectively____
“The ‘Divorce Case' scene showed a couple discussing a division of their property. After they agreed to split everything ‘right down the middle’, the husband uses a power saw to cut through a table and a sofa while their dog looks on soulfully, possibly with some concern that he may suffer the same fate. The announcer then states:
‘When a marriage gets in trouble, everyone wants to be fair. But that’s not always so easy. The law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo can help you through those difficult times. Because we understand that people facing a divorce don’t need any more problems than they already have. The law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo.’ ____
“The 'Mumbo Jumbo’ ad shows a judge and a lawyer in a courtroom saying only the words ‘Mumbo’ and ‘Jumbo’ to each other. The announcer then says:
"When you’re faced with bankruptcy, divorce or possible criminal charges, you don't have to be confused by the law. You can be helped by it. Because our courts are designed to serve ordinary people. So are the law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo.’ ____
"The ‘Accident Case’ ad shows a victim of an auto accident pinned under an overturned car. He is approached by another man whereupon the following dialogue takes place:
Man # 1: Hi there, big guy! I represent the cement truck. You just sign this release and it will settle everything.
MAN UNDER CAR: Release?
MAN #1: I can wait until you have a free arm.
MAN UNDER CAR: Arm?
MAN # 1: Which one do you write with?
'ANNOUNCER: If you’re involved in an accident, don’t ever sign away your legal rights. Protect them. Call the law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo.
MAN # 1: Can you hold the pen in your teeth?” ____
“The ‘Bankruptcy Case’ shows a man sitting in his living room in front of a television set with a bowl of popcorn. Two men come and proceed to strip the room of all its furnishings including the television set and finally the bowl of popcorn. The announcer then states:
‘ANNOUNCER: When financial tragedy strikes you, you don’t have to lose everything, there are laws to protect you. Bankruptcy laws. The law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo can help you protect yourself, because the law is designed to serve ordinary people. So are the law offices of Trantolo and Trantolo.’ ” [Grievance Comm. v. Trantolo, 192 Conn. 15, 470 A.2d 228, 229 n. 1 (1984) ]
*564It is difficult to disagree with the court’s conclusion that these advertisements could catch the public’s attention and alert them to the availability and possible need for securing legal services.