Court rejects Bar's Web site ad rules.

The court suggested the Bar consider a two-step process--including having the public accept a disclaimer--before accessing the inside pages of a lawyer's Web site.

Questioning whether they would provide sufficient protection for the public, the Supreme Court has rejected the Bar's proposed lawyer Web site advertising rules, but made several suggestions on how the rules could be improved.

The Bar's proposals would have required that the home page of a lawyer Web site comply with all the substantive lawyer advertising regulations, which are set forth in Rule 4-7.2. After the home page, the remainder of the lawyer Web site has to comply with all substantive lawyer advertising regulations except for testimonials, references to past case results, and characterizations of the quality of their legal services--items that are prohibited in other types of lawyer ads. The Bar would have required disclaimers if the lawyer included testimonials or references to past results.

The court found the Bar's proposed amendments were "not sufficient" to make material behind the home page fall under the concept of information "upon request," but said "sufficient changes" could be made to the advertising rules to make pages behind the home page constitute material "upon request."

Information provided at the request of a prospective client is not subject to the lawyer advertising rules, but cannot be misleading.

To do that, the court suggested the Bar consider a two-step process--including having the public accept a disclaimer--before accessing the inside pages of a lawyer's Web site.

"First, users could be required to complete a 'Request' page with their name, address, and phone number (all required fields). Second, a disclaimer page could appear with the bottom of the page requiring a click on a button to indicate that the user had read the disclaimer (and an option for the user to discontinue the request for information)," the court said. "Only after the user navigated through these two pages would the user be able to obtain the additional information."

The court said taking those added steps would make obtaining information from a Web site similar to getting information "upon request" from a lawyer, as when potential clients phone firms asking for information and then are mailed a DVD or brochure by the lawyer with the requested information.

The Bar contended that there are "significant difficulties" in regulating attorney Web sites in that posted material can...