New York Bar May Crack Down on Blogging Lawyers

An anonymous reader writes "While you might not guess it from watching late night TV, advertisements by lawyers are regulated by a web of regulations intended to protect potential clients from deceptive claims in such ads. Generally, these rules require lawyers to submit their ads to a review board, often with a filing fee paid with each new advertisement. The New York bar has proposed new rules which would define blogging as advertising. Should these rules be enacted, any New York lawyer who blogs on any legal topic in New York would be required to submit any new blog post to the New York Bar for review. For New York lawyers who write frequently updated blogs, this could force them to make multiple (and potentially expensive) reports to the New York Bar every single day."

unlikely

[illegalcortex]

Interesting in that it points out a class of morons. But does anyone really think this will happen, given the consequences?

Re:

[pegr]

The solution is simple! Just precede every post with IANAL!

Re:

[networkBoy]

Wouldn't that be purgery?
(yes I know it isn't, but it could prove to be mighty inconvienent in the courtroom).
-nB

Re:

[anagama]

"purgery" -- is that some kind of purgatory? An enema purging?

Or perhaps you want to have the "u" and the "e" change places, and then replace the "g" with a "j".

Or...

[Reverend528]

this could force them to make multiple (and potentially expensive) reports to the New York Bar every single day.

Or they could just stop blogging and do the job i'm paying them $100/hr to do.

Re:

[brainboyz]

And lawyers don't have off-hours? How much do you pay your lawyers that they're on-call 24/7?

I don't think causing problems for lawyers is very bright. And, it may be lawyers, but they still have the right to blog whatever the hell they want.

Re:Or...

[Reverend528]

I don't think causing problems for lawyers is very bright.

I imagine the New York Bar has some pretty good lawyers of their own.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Then why are they so clearly considering violating the First Amendment rights of other lawyers in New York?

The bar association can condition the practice of law on adherence to regulations that, were they laws rather than conditions attached to the practice of law, would be Constitutionally barred, because practicing law isn't a right.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

The bar association can condition the practice of law on adherence to regulations that, were they laws rather than conditions attached to the practice of law, would be Constitutionally barred, because practicing law isn't a right.

Assuming that the bar association is a private organization, I agree that they have the perogative to certify (or not certify) whoever they wish. However, one thing I've never seen properly explained: what keeps someone who isn't certified by the bar association from practicing

Re:

[ktappe]

IANAL, but what you say makes sense. That is, the bar assn. would appear to be a monopoly, and as such one would think it would be subject to certain restrictions. That is, if the use their position as the only entity that will allow lawyers to work to force a laywer to choose between their livelihood and being able to express first admendment rights to free speech, then would the bar not be potentially violating Taft Hartley anti-trust regulations?

Re:

[anagama]

However, one thing I've never seen properly explained: what keeps someone who isn't certified by the bar association from practicing law?

In Washington state for example, the State Bar Act [wa.gov] defines who can and cannot practice law under various circumstances. It looks like the meat of the prohibition is at RCW 2.48.170 [wa.gov] and RCW 2.48.180(2) & (3) [wa.gov]. So google for your state's statutes -- they're almost certainly provided free online. This isn't legal advice.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

In Washington state for example, the State Bar Act defines who can and cannot practice law under various circumstances. It looks like the meat of the prohibition is at RCW 2.48.170 and RCW 2.48.180(2) & (3). So google for your state's statutes -- they're almost certainly provided free online. This isn't legal advice.

Ah, thanks for that. It appears to be a simple licensing requirement, which would put it squarely in the category of state-supported monopoly priviledge and competition-avoidance. (An ea

Re:

[kthejoker]

I went Googling to see if a bar association had ever been sued for antitrust, but typing in "bar association antitrust" in Google is probably the most worthless thing I have ever done.

Re:

[hesiod]

Naw, at least I, and maybe someone else, got a chuckle out of it. Laughter is priceless, not worthless.

Re:

[ArsSineArtificio]

Or is it perhaps just a way of avoiding competition? It certainly does help to raise the barrier to entry into the legal profession, limiting the supply of legal services and driving up the price.

One point that the other respondents didn't mention is that law is licensed in a manner akin to medicine in order (at least theoretically) to protect the public. In a free marketplace, it can be difficult to judge the quality of one provider as opposed to another. If you're disappointed by some guy who claimed he

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

One point that the other respondents didn't mention is that law is licensed in a manner akin to medicine in order (at least theoretically) to protect the public. In a free marketplace, it can be difficult to judge the quality of one provider as opposed to another.

Which, of course, is why private "consumer report" agencies exist. There is no reason why there could not be private bar associations, or medical licensing organizations, run on the same model as the private ASE certification for auto mechanics

Re:Or...

[EatHam]

And lawyers don't have off-hours?

No, they bill 84 hours per day.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Pft. That's just during the week. On the weekends I like to take some time off, so I only bill 60 hours a day.

Re:

[xero91]

$100/hr??? 99% of my clients are lawyers and they regularly bill upwards of $300/hr

Re:

[acidrain]

$100/hr??? 99% of my clients are lawyers and they regularly bill upwards of $300/hr

Of all the people to attempt to deprive of their rights, lawyers would be right at the bottom of my list. They seem quite well equipped to defend themselves.

So yeah, I'm not remotely worried about this. If Paypal wanted to prevent homeless people from asking for spare change via Paypal over the internet, then I guess I'd take even that a little more seriously.

Re:

[Sigma 7]

Of all the people to attempt to deprive of their rights, lawyers would be right at the bottom of my list. They seem quite well equipped to defend themselves.

They are only equipped to deal with threats within the system. As soon as you change the system (e.g. switch to Despotism), lawyers instantly become obsolete since the law has changed overnight. They can retrain themselves, but it does not change the fact that law is on a whim of a despot.

Also, unless you are willing to issue firearms and bulletproof

Re:

[ultranova]

Naturally, the assassin has a $2 million bond set for bail - but that's a post-incident defence rather than an active defence.

So basically, in America you can commit a murder (or try to) and then buy your way free. It does seem yet another aspect of US legal system makes mockery of equality before law...

Re:Or...

[networkBoy]

Childhood friend of mine's dad is a local lawyer.
He normally goes upwards of $1K+/Hr. His Jr. lawyers in his firm are $250-500/hr and do most the work. He usually only bills his hours when the client insists he handle the case, or when in court and such.
I helped him with his PBX and a couple other little PC things. He was quoted an absurd ammount of money (to the tune of $8K) for what took me about an hour or so to do. I told him "no worries" and went out to lunch with him (he bought) and that was good enough for me.

Some years later I had a *real issue* at work with a way out of control manager (involved verbal and physical abuse, threats, and a knife). Gary gave me about 10 hours of his firms time and saved me from making some stupid, but not so obvious, mistakes when dealing with HR and legal. The end result is that I am still employed (so unfortunately is the manager) and I will never have to work with or under him again.

FF another few years to the link in my sig, again Gary to the rescue. He proof read my response to the C&D letter and blessed it as "an excellent response" along with some other wonder advice.

Moral? It never hurts to have an excellent lawyer think he owes you more than he does :-)
-nB

Sorry for the ramble, just got going and wandered around O_o

Re:

[tehcyder]

Moral? It never hurts to have an excellent lawyer think he owes you more than he does :-)

Moral no. 2? Don't assume lawyers don't read slashdot.

Yours sincerely, Gary.

Re:

[mirio]

Funny story time:

When I was in college I worked at a mom and pop PC store. Mom and pop we're unfortunately going through a terrible divorce that involved the insurance saleswoman next door. My boss got a bill from his lawyer one day and called me into his office. His lawyer had a 30 minute minimum and billed him 30 minutes each for 1 or 2 minute phone calls. He was pissed. Anyway, the divorce was finalized and several months later his lawyer started calling with PC problems. I was instructed to carefu

maybe so

[thatguy101010]

one must also take into account this as well http://www.easy-poll.com/sonda.vote.2.6979/ [easy-poll.com]

To blog or not to blog

[robyannetta]

The New York bar has proposed new rules which would define blogging as advertising.

Yeah, I'm tired of searching out Lawyer's blogs to see who has the most annoying 1-800-ASK-____ phone number because late night TV doesn't show me enough of them.

to affect slashdot's own.

[tddoog]

Too bad for Newyorkcountrylawyer [slashdot.org] and his blog [blogspot.com].

I wonder if slashdot interviews would count?

Re:to affect slashdot's own.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

tddoog wrote:

"Too bad for Newyorkcountrylawyer and his blog. I wonder if slashdot interviews would count?"

If those rules go into effect, both of my blogs, Recording Industry vs. The People [blogspot.com], and Ohio Election Fraud (formerly "Fairness") [blogspot.com], along with my web sites, info.riaalawsuits.us [riaalawsuits.us] and Ohio Election 2004 [ohioelection2004.com] would be taken down, as it would be far too costly and time consuming to comply with the new rules. See my collection of articles on New York's rules and the impact they would have on lawyer blogs here [blogspot.com]j.

Fortunately, though, the various bar associations and other lawyer groups are very concerned about the rules, and are putting in detailed comments explaining how the proposed rules are too overbroad. And the Appellate Divisions have postponed the proposed effective dates, in order to give the legal community and the public at large more time to comment.

Arguably my entire membership in Slashdot would indeed count, since my profile identifies me. It would of course be impossible to comply with those rules, so I might just have to stop participating in Slashdot, which for me would be sad indeed. I have really come to enjoy it here.

Blogs by lawyers are a pretty new thing, but I think they have made a significant contribution. I think it would be a shame if we had to stop blogging just because we're lawyers.

I don't think the proposed rules will be passed in that form, so I'm not too worried.

For those of you who haven't seen the proposed rules, they're posted here [nycourts.gov].

Re:

[debrain]

If those rules go into effect, both of my blogs, Recording Industry vs. The People, and Ohio Election Fraud (formerly "Fairness"), along with my web sites, info.riaalawsuits.us and Ohio Election 2004 would be taken down, as it would be far too costly and time consuming to comply with the new rules. See my collection of articles on New York's rules and the impact they would have on lawyer blogs herej.

Which rules would you be violating?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In order to comply with the rules I would have to label every page an "advertisement", which they are not, and I would have to file copies of each and every page every day. I couldn't afford the time and money it would take.

Re:

[debrain]

Sorry if I was unclear. If I am to send my comments to the NYS bar, to which rule would I refer to as imposing this requirement, please?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

These are the rules you would be referring to. Proposed amendments to Rules
1200-1
1200-5-a
1200-6
1200-7
1200-8
http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/proposedamendments.s html [nycourts.gov]

Re:

[debrain]

Thank you for the reference. I've read the proposed amendments. However, I have not found any reference to the threat you are speaking of. Could you please refer to (or quote) a section in the proposed amendments that would require you to label your blog as advertisement and require reporting to the NYS bar?

Re:

[Reziac]

I'd be very sad to see your blogs go away.. they're a valuable resource. If you're not careful, you'll give lawyers a good name :)

[Actually, most of the lawyers I know are good people.]

I am wondering if this ruling sticks, if it could be extended to affect sites like GrokLaw, or anyone directly employed by a lawyer (your employees aren't allowed to "advertise" by collaring folks on the street either, right?)

ISTM all that's really needed is a boilerplate disclaimer that the blog is a personal endeavour and i

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not getting too much into the details because I don't think the rule revisions in their present format are going anywhere. See the comments [riaalawsuits.us] of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. I'm sure the rule revision will be much, much narrower than what they first proposed.

Re:

[Reziac]

I do hope you're right. Rather strange that it's so fuzzy-broad to begin with, unless there was some other agenda behind it.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think the reason it was so fuzzy-broad was that the authors were not sufficiently conversant with the technology to understand what a burden it would be on legitimate discussion. I think there was 'another agenda' in the sense that the draftsmen were probably overreacting to a couple of annoying and ianppropriate things they'd seen, and going after them with a shotgun instead of something more targeted to the specific problems.

Re:

[Reziac]

Sounds like the way it probably was, yeah... a bit of "shut that guy up" coupled with non-techies hunting flies with howitzers.

Would there be any problem with simply applying the same standards you're held to in print media?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No there wouldn't be any problem applying the same standards as would be applied to print media.

Re:

[Reziac]

Well then! We need only convince them that blogs are merely ordinary magazines, printed with extremely poor-quality ink. :)

Actually, that might make a reasonable argument: print out the blog on the one hand, and have the online version onscreen on the other, and ask them to define the practical difference: "How does this text differ from that text? It doesn't? Horrors!!"

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks,Jaysyn.

Actually for me personally it would probably be a blessing, since I spend far too much time on this already.

But the people I'm trying to help would be out their primary resource for fighting back against the RIAA.

Missing the point

[SpeedBump0619]

For New York lawyers who write frequently updated blogs, this could force them to make multiple (and potentially expensive) reports to the New York Bar every single day.

Don't be absurd. It won't force them to report more, it will force them not to update their web logs, which is, no doubt, the real point.

Re:Missing the point

[garcia]

Why doesn't the Bar just subscribe to RSS feeds of the blogs?

Can you say

[Archangel Michael]

Money Grubbing Lawyers?

"Generally, these rules require lawyers to submit their ads to a review board, often with a filing fee paid with each new advertisement."

Some blogging...

[DragonWriter]

...is certainly akin to advertising, but some is more akin to writing op-ed pieces for a newspaper and doing commentary in other media, or just writing a book (but that it is published incrementally.)

Seems to me it makes more sense to regulate based on the content than the medium, in this case, but then, I'm not a member of the NY Bar.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Content based regulation is generally not allowed by the first ammendment.

Content based regulation of commercial speech is allowed, within bounds, by the first amendment (and commercial speech is what is at issue with advertising regulations), and, anyway, there is no right to practice law, and states (through bar associations) can condition the practice of law on adherence to regulations that would not be valid as laws governing the general populace (which is why bar associations can prohibit advertising,

How many can the bar handle?

[also-rr]

There are an insane number of lawyers in New York. If 1% of them sent in a blog post check request every day for a week you probably wouldn't be able to stand in the bar associations hall and USPS would be profitable again. They might even be able to put some of those blue mailboxes back on the streets again.

Misleading article

[nosredna]

Having read through the rule changes, this seems to be limited to actual solicitation for services. Legal commentary or discussion of legal issues isn't anywhere in this, that I could see.

Basically, it applies the limitations currently in place for print and television ads to internet ads as well, which is a reasonable step to take... regulate all advertising, or regulate none.

Re:

[Kupek]

From the proposed rules:

(k) "Advertisement" means any public communication made by or on behalf of a lawyer
or law firm about a lawyer or law firm, or about a lawyer's or law firm's services.

I think it's reasonable to call a lawyer's blog a public communication made by that lawyer about that lawyer. And that fits the proposed definition of advertisement. That seems to be a broad definition of advertising.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I disagree. My blogs, and even my Slashdot profile, identify me and who I am. Under the proposed rules that could make the entire publication "an advertisement". No lawyer who wants to keep on being a lawyer is going to take a chance on that.

Re:

[FLEB]

It's settled, then. What we need is a renegade lawyer on the edge. Two days from retirement. His partner's dead, his wife left him for a terrorist kidnapper, and he's out for justice... First Amendment justice. And yes... oh, yes... he's blogging.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Either that, or a more well-drafted rule, which I think would be easier to put together than the scenario you have posited.

Re:

[Sigma 7]

My blogs, and even my Slashdot profile, identify me and who I am. Under the proposed rules that could make the entire publication "an advertisement". No lawyer who wants to keep on being a lawyer is going to take a chance on that.

One word: Pseudonym.

Re:

[PlusFiveTroll]

So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave. The ability of anonymous communication is nice, but should not be a requirement to speak freely.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If I didn't identify where it was coming from, it might be misleading.

Re:

[debrain]

That aside, though, this reeks more of the NY bar just wanting some money. If this actually happens, we'll have to see how it pans out.

The New York State bar is run by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. They are constitutionally guaranteed pay to uphold their impartiality and independence. They cannot profit, or even have income, and any such notion would fundamentally contradict the constitution that defines the entire judicial branch of US government.

Re. advertisement: The rules of profession

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You have not read the rules correctly. It is nowhere limited to actual solicitation for services. It applies to all electronic communications which are "about a lawyer" and "by a lawyer", which would probably apply to all law firm web sites, internet and email newsletters, and to any legal blog where the lawyer actually identifies himself. If you think there is a section restricting the rules to "actual solicitation of services" please point to that section. Here are the rules:

http://www.nycourts.gov/rul [nycourts.gov]

New York Bar May Crack Down on Blogging Lawyers

[phantomfive]

Did anyone else see this headline and think it was talking about some bar-room brawl aimed at lawyers that spread all over new york, then want to join in? Pass the bud and punch another lawyer!!

Re: New York Bar May Crack Down on Blogging Lawyer

[Wilson_6500]

My first impression from the headline was that there was a tavern in New York that was taking a stand against lawyers doing their blogging while sitting around in bars. My first thought: "Bars in New York have wireless internet?"

Am I the only one...

[Kelson]

...who read the headline, and immediately thought that some bar in New York was having problems with lawyers taking up the tables with their laptops, blogging away all night and taking the space away from paying patrons?

Re:

[JamesTRexx]

Almost, only I thought about lawyers wardriving on the open wireless accesspoint in the bar.
Damn those people, crashing into my right to get drunk and surf for porn with the resident old drunk geezer.

Help me!

[jav1231]

I want to care about lawyers getting screwed but I'm too busy getting giddy over the thought of it.

Re:

[mgblst]

Lawyers are like traffic, nobody really thought about them when designing the sytem, but they are inherent because of the way the system was designed. Unlike traffic, they have a lobby group fighting for their survival (the Bar).

Re:

[Quadraginta]

No, no, the thing that keeps the cost of lawyers up is the fact that the justice system is set up to utterly screw you, even in trivial matters, unless you have a lawyer well-known to the Court by your side.

Result: almost infinite demand for lawyers. Infinite demand + finite supply = very high equilibrium price. I don't think the cost of doing business (including advertising) is significant. If it were the profit margin on lawyering would be slim, and we all know that's not the case, har har. And some p

Re:

[julesh]

Now, if the system were arranged so that for routine matters you could just go into Court yourself and put your case plainly without fearing for your life, the demand for lawyers would be reasonable, and their price more in line with the value of their service.

Have you ever tried? I don't know a lot about US procedure, but over here in the UK it's actually fairly easy to go to court without a lawyer, and they do a lot to make it easier. And our legal systems are pretty similar to each other, when you look

Re:

[Quadraginta]

Have you ever tried?

Um, yes. Net cost: $2500, plus many hours of my time, all wasted.

but over here in the UK it's actually fairly easy to go to court without a lawyer, and they do a lot to make it easier.

Congratulations. The English have always had a reputation for being sensible.

And our legal systems are pretty similar to each other, when you look at them...

Formally, yes. In practise, I am not so sure. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the US is not entirely of English ancestry, even

Re:

[Pharmboy]

The man who represents himself has an idiot for a lawyer and a client. (stolen from somewhere)

And as someone who worked in criminal defense for a few years (not as a lawyer) I can tell you, the above claim is an understatement.

Another stuffy oganization fears Internet's power

[vinn01]

Information flowing without our control! The horror.

-Nothing to see here, move along. You've seen this story before.

505

[superstick58]

"For New York lawyers who write frequently updated blogs, this could force them to make multiple (and potentially expensive) reports to the New York Bar every single day."

Yes that and the mounting server costs as he is slashdotted to oblivion.

Who would it affect?

[Viper Daimao]

For New York lawyers who write frequently updated blogs [blogspot.com], this could force them to make multiple (and potentially expensive) reports to the New York Bar every single day."

I'm no expert on Greenwald, but doesn't he live in Brazil or something? Would this still affect him? Is he still practicing NY law from another country? Or is it Thomas Ellers that live in NY while Greenwald lives in Brazil?

What will this mean...

[ubermiester]

...for the Bob Loblaw Law Blog [chicagotribune.com]

Odd

[debrain]

IIANYL, and this strikes me as a red herring. I've read through this, and the gist of the amendments have to deal with solicitations and advertisements as applied to modern technology. I can't read the arguments on the second link, but there are two things that were immediately clear from reading the amendments. First, they are narrowly construed to apply only to solicitation and advertisement, not publications in general. Second, it is in large part a technological amendment, to deal with new methods of advertisements like pop-up advertisements.

The first is the relevant part. I don't, on the face of it, see how this would preclude blogging. It would prevent blogging as a form of advertisement, but that's the very point of the restrictions on professional attorney and counselor publications. Advertisements for lawyers are permitted insofar, but only insofar, as the advertisement aids the public's ability to make an informed decision. Extensions of that are generally barred as being potentially misleading.

The second comment is relevant because it shows that they are technologically savvy. This gives some hope that even if this comes into force and causes problems, they will be conscious of the problems it creates and amend it appropriately. Incidentally, before this amendment, by interpretation, there appears to be some technical requirement to have every partner's name in the law firm's domain name.

Again, though, I haven't read the criticisms, and I've only given it a once-over. I don't pretend to be defending the NY bar; I don't know the arguments against it. I've just read through it and this is all I could come up with. If there is something there that unduly inhibits an attorney or counselor-at-law's ability to publish online, I would be interested in seeing that amended before it goes into force. If someone points a good argument out to me, I'll be sure to send along my comments, as a member of the bar.

The only criticism I could see was an extraterritorial clause which makes the law apply to out-of-NY lawyers who solicit or advertise their services in NY. But that seems reasonable, given the nexus between the out-of-NY lawyers and their purported NY services, and is totally unrelated to this slashdot article.

Ha!

[ballwall]

Finally, a legal situation where lawyers lose. Karma's a bitch.

Usually they're the only ones that come out ahead...

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Finally, a legal situation where lawyers lose.

...to other lawyers. Which, really, isn't all that uncommon. Legal situations where lawyers lose and nonlawyers win are less common.

Bar....

[dan828]

So, did anyone else read the headline and think that this was about a bar cracking down on a bunch of lawyers sitting around on their laptops on a free wifi connection and using up all their bandwidth? I suspect the story might be a bit more interesting if the did?

Re:

[mgblst]

No, you were the only one!

Why censor lawyers?

[belmolis]

While limitations on advertising by lawyers have been around for a long time, they seem to have their roots in in pre-democratic times, when legal representation was to available to the wealthy if at all and the very practice of law was considered a somewhat questionable activity that had to be strictly regulated in order to be kept respectable. I fail to see any justification for restrictions on the speech of lawyers different from those that apply to everyone else. Lawyers would still be deterred from false advertising and libel by the existing laws of general application. Is there any good reason that censorship by the bar associations should not be eliminated?

Re:

[DragonWriter]

While limitations on advertising by lawyers have been around for a long time, they seem to have their roots in in pre-democratic times, when [...] the very practice of law was considered a somewhat questionable activity that had to be strictly regulated in order to be kept respectable.

The practice of law is still widely considered a somewhat questionable activity (hence the regard many people have for lawyers), and it is still one that needs to be strictly regulated (both in the view of nonlawyers and tha

This Hurts Lawyers Who Seek Court Reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers who complain about corruption in the courts often use blogs to expose it.

Look at Barbara Johnson's site http://www.falseallegations.com/ [falseallegations.com]

The bar association doesn't like it when lawyers start publicizing problems in their courts.

Thus, the Massachusetts bar is seeking to disbar Barbara Johnson and shut down her site.

the New York Bar

[JustNiz]

>> The New York bar has proposed new rules which would define blogging as advertising.

Jeez, you go somewhere for a quiet drink and look what happens.

City Bar suggests proposed rules be changed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York [nycbar.org] has pointed out the First Amendment problems with the proposed rules [nycourts.gov] and suggested detailed changes [riaalawsuits.us] (pdf file) in them.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

For a lawyer, Bar Association membership is, depending on the state, de facto mandatory, or legally mandatory.

Re:Who cares

[Mr. X]

This is a mandatory bar that all lawyers admitted in New York State must join.

Re:

[Sparr0]

Can you cite the requirement?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The proposed rules are posted here [nycourts.gov].

Re:Who cares

[damsa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Bar_As sociation [wikipedia.org], In New York there is no mandatory bar, but the title in the Slashdot summary is confusing because it's not the bar association imposing the rule but the New York's Administrative Board of Courts which is in fact a government entity which all lawyers who wish to practice in New York must abide by.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes these would be binding rules imposed on all lawyers in New York.

Re:

[werfele]

It's not like the government is doing this

You seem to have misread TFA. New York's Administrative Board of Courts is indeed "the government."

Re:

[bughunter]

In which case, they cannot restrict free speech in the form of posting opinion pieces on personal webpages.

In the example given, Glenn Greenwald's blog, his entries are no different than letters to the editor published by the NYT, or live appearances on programs such as Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

I doubt this ruling would stand up to challenge. Perhaps lawyer/bloggers could be required to remove mention of their legal practices from their blog, or change their outlet to a third-party operated blog

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I agree with you that there are huge First Amendment issues with the proposed rules. But if they were to go through in that format, most lawyers who need to make a living are not going to take a chance on violating the rules and then using the First Amendment as their defense.

Re:

[PlusFiveTroll]

...most lawyers who need to make a living are not going to take a chance on violating the rules and then using the First Amendment as their defense.

They should use the second instead, Oh this is New York, you gave up your gun rights there. Oops.

Re:

[DarkVader]

Hmmm... Sounds like what you need is somebody who is in NJ, does most of his business in NJ, is also licensed in NY, handles the occasional NY case, has a blog, and REALLY likes the First Amendment.

Is there anybody who meets those criteria?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The rule also applies to out of state lawyers.

Re:

[devilspgd]

I think that's the point -- Someone with less to lose, but whom is still a target.

Re:Your rights online?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly.

This is just one occupation that is being censored. Because it is lawyers, nobody will stand up and argue. But what other occupations can be censored to make sure that you have to have your information certified on your blogs? Medical blogs? Engineering blogs? Government watchgroup blogs that happen to have a lawyer on their staff? Nutritional blogs? Technology blogs?

If this concept is slightly extended, anyone who has to be certified in any way will have to prove every statement they make on a blog is correct (and pay the fees to do so). There are a lot of jobs that require some sort of certification from the level of operating a nuclear reactor to the level of driving a truck.

Re:

[Amouth]

the sad part is that they realy arn't trying to censor them.. they just want the money.. i am sure that if someone posts 3 times a day and they have 1000 people posting we get 3000 things every day.. the board isn't going to read a damn one of them.. they might filter it for key words and send it on... they just want the damn money..

Re:

[squidfood]

Because it is lawyers, nobody will stand up and argue.

Hahaha HA HA HA hahaha (hrhmph. excuse me a moment, ok). snicker. heeheehee hmph. heeheehee.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Enforcement usually would probably be in response to a complaint of violation; state bar associations tend to have broad powers to discipline their members, and that discipline can be pretty effective given that bar association membership is legally required to practice law.

Re:Recording Industry vs The People based in NY

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you. I agree that it is way over the top. I can see where big corporations -- who can pay top dollar for legal information -- would love to see the information become less available to the public. For example, how happy do you think the record labels would be to see my recording industry blog shut down?

Fortunately, though, the entire legal community in New York agrees with you as well, that it is way over the top. So I don't think the rules will go through in that overbroad format.

For those of you who haven't seen the rules, they're posted here [nycourts.gov].