Court again takes up lawyer-to-lawyer communications.

Florida Supreme Court justices expressed disappointment that The Florida Bar had not provided them with better information as they debated an advertising rule amendment on lawyers' communications with other lawyers and with current or former clients.

At a February 11 oral argument, justices reviewed a Bar request not to change a longtime policy of not subjecting lawyer-to-lawyer communications and lawyer communications with past or current clients to Bar advertising rules.

The issue stemmed from a 2004 Bar review of advertising rules. A report filed with the court in 2005 recommended that a comment to Rule 4-7.1 be moved into the main body of the rule. That comment noted that communications between a lawyer and family members, other lawyers, and current or former clients were considered exempt from the advertising rules.

When it ruled on the overall ad case, the court accepted the exemption for communications with family members. But it also wrote, "We request further information from the Bar as to why communications between lawyers, and communications with current and former clients, should be exempted from the advertising rules, including any research or evidence supporting such exemptions. We defer adoption of those two exemptions at this time."

In response, the Bar's Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics solicited comments from Bar members, local bars, and others about the proposed rule. Most of those favored exempting the communications from advertising rules. The committee also commissioned a survey of Bar members.

"Survey results indicate that 44 percent of those surveyed initiated some form of communication to another lawyer to solicit business. Seventy-two percent of those surveyed indicated that they had received some form of communication from another lawyer to solicit business," according to the Bar's brief filed with the court. "A large majority of lawyers surveyed (91 percent) indicated that they have not received a communication from another lawyer that contained false or incorrect information. Finally, a majority of lawyers surveyed (69 percent) believe that the Bar should not regulate communications between lawyers that are made for the purpose of soliciting business."

At the oral arguments, some justices expressed dissatisfaction at the Bar's response, and also appeared concerned that lawyers might avoid direct mail advertising regulations by mailing an advertisement to a second lawyer and having that lawyer send...