Advertising panel continues its study of lawyer Web sites.

Justices' questions at oral arguments on advertising rules weighed heavily on Chobee Ebbets.

Walking out of the Florida Supreme Court that June 7 day, Ebbets said, it was clear they wanted something done about lawyer Web sites that more than 40,000 Florida lawyers use to make their services known. As chair of The Florida Bar Special Committee on Website Advertising Rules, Ebbets is the man in charge of making that happen.

"The Supreme Court clearly indicated to us through questioning they want the Web site addressed by the Bar's advertising rules," Ebbets told six of the committee's 12 members who met either in person or by telephone at the Annual Convention in Boca Raton June 22.

"Attempting to exempt it completely and wrestling with its size is not something the court cares about. They have a great interest in the Web and believe the Web is the future of lawyer soliciting and advertising. They expect us to address it in a means consistent with our advertising scheme," Ebbets said.

Add to that the Bar Board of Governors' mostly negative reaction to a 6-4 recommendation from the committee to carve out Web sites as "information on request" from a potential client and therefore exempt from most rules.

"We are going to have to wrestle with the rules and specifically the Web site advertising issue for a longer period than we had anticipated," Ebbets said.

He asked members to stay on as appointed until their work is completed, which he said he hoped will be by the December Board of Governors meeting.

"So by reading the tea leaves it was fairly clear advertising on request is not an alternative?" asked John Patterson. "Regulation in some manner essentially is our charge? They gave no indication on how it would be regulated, such as nothing on prior review and guidelines for compliance? No guidance on things we grapple with?"

"None," Ebbets answered. "I was rather surprised by Justice Pariente's comments. with her first opportunity to go on record and say, "I do not like advertising.' ... She had no reservations saying that. And there was a general nodding of heads."

The group spent three hours "reading the tea leaves" of oral arguments and participated in what Ebbets called "a conceptual dialog."

In the end, the members concluded, without a formal vote, that Web sites should not be carved out of the rules and viewed as "information on demand." Rather, Web sites should be regulated consistently with other advertising rules affecting other media under Rule 4-7.1, with no requirement for filing and prior review. Also, they discussed adding more specific language to the rules about computer-accessed communications.

Ebbets directed the committee to how the New York State Bar Association is over" hauling advertising rules, with specific definitions of computer access communications that include Web sites, search engines, pop-up ads, chat rooms, instant messages, and domain names. The New York rules also say that every communication, including computer access communication, that involves ads shall be labeled attorney advertising in red ink on the front page.

"I'm not trying to say adopt the New York model, but this is an approach I want us to take as a committee: What has someone else done? Would it help us?" Ebbets said.

Bar Ethics Counsel Elizabeth Tarbert responded: "It's your policy call. Last year's task force thought better not to define it, because the minute you do someone else comes up with something not on the list."

Back to oral arguments, Ebbets zeroed in on a comment from Justice Raoul Cantero, who said he didn't see a difference between Yellow Page ads and Web sites.

"Then here we are with a problem at our doorstep. If at least one justice is saying it's the same, and assume he's right for argument, then we have to have a Bar staff large enough to view some 40,000 Web sites," Ebbets said.

"I don't think they are as concerned about review," Tarbert said, but want lawyers touting their services on Web sites to be subject to disciplinary regulation if they break advertising rules.

Ebbets said, "The court impressed me that they are very acutely award of the issues and interested in the issues. They asked where are we and what are we doing. Justice Pariente point-blank asked me: 'When are you meeting again?'"

Over the telephone, committee member Marty Cohen asked: "Did they understand when you are talking about Web sites, in total, it is not advertisement on a page or in a scope of 30 seconds--it's a book?"

"I told them it could be 500 pages and some are," Ebbets answered. "I could have a Chobee Ebbets Web page of me and my wife and dog and kids, and have a video of a SUV rolling over.... The court is sick and tired of lawyers telling them how great they are.... The court is not happy about lawyers talking about past successes.... I am getting a clear message that advertising on a Web site, that lawyer has to abide by the same rules."

By Jan Pudlow

Senior Editor