U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert in Case About NY Lawyer Advertising Rules

Today, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Alexander v. Cahill, which challenged New York's rules governing lawyer advertising which went into effect in 2006.

The Second Circuit previously held that most of the rules challenged were unconstitutional, with the exception of the restriction against lawyers saying they are part of a firm when they are not, portraying a fictitious law firm, or using a fictitious name to refer to lawyers not associated together in a firm.

The Second Circuit's decision largely affirmed the decision of the District Court, which I posted about here. I wrote about the Second Circuit's decision in Alexander v. Cahill here. As I noted in that post, the decision has meaning for New York lawyers - the following is an excerpt from that post:

As a practical matter, what does the decision mean for lawyers in New York?

Based upon the decision, lawyers will be permitted to:

• Use testimonials or endorsements, even of current clients, as long as those testimonials or endorsements are accompanied by a disclaimer indicating that past results are not an indicator of future performance.
• Use an actor or spokesperson in advertisements, provided that there is disclosure of that fact in the advertisement.
• Portray judges in advertisements, as long as those advertisements do not imply an ability to influence the court.
• Use 'attention-getting' techniques in their advertisements (such as the gimmicks used in the advertisements in the case at hand, including special effects), particularly where these techniques serve to impart information in a form which makes it easy for the general public to understand. 

Since the Supreme Court has now denied cert in the case, the above continues to be true. Although, as I also noted in that post, similar regulations could still be enacted if the State can provide evidence to support its claims that the advertisements it is seeking to restrict are actually misleading (as opposed to merely potentially misleading) to the public.

 

Hat tip to Constitutional Law Prof Blog for bringing today's denial of certiorari to my attention.