Court overhauls lawyer advertising regulations: more ads must be reviewed by the bar.

Beginning May 1, Bar members must submit almost all non-website advertising to the Bar for approval prior to dissemination, under new advertising rules approved by the Florida Supreme Court.

Except for two minor changes, the court in a January 31 ruling approved the Bar-recommended overhaul of ad rules that culminated a two-and-a-half-year effort.

For the first time, the revamped rules allow lawyers to refer to past results in their advertising and characterize their skills and experience as long as it is objectively verifiable. The rules would allow testimonials in certain conditions.

The rules also classify attorney websites as advertising, a stance that produced dissents from Justices Charles Canady and Barbara Pariente. Four justices approved the main opinion, while Justice Peggy Quince partially concurred and partially dissented without an opinion.

"The Florida Supreme Court accepted each and every one of our recommendations for rewriting and restructuring of the rules. We're very pleased," Bar Board of Governors member Carl Schwait told the board when it met the day after the court ruled.

The two alterations were a renumbering of the rules by the court and a change to a section on how former and retired judges could use their former titles. Schwait said the court's change is an improvement in carrying out the Bar's intent for that rule.

The rewrite was intended to provide clearer guidance to advertising lawyers, he said, and balance consumer protection and First Amendment concerns.

One major change was requiring all ads, except websites, containing more than basic "safe harbor" information to be filed along with a $150 review fee with the Bar at least 20 days before the initial broadcast or publication. Under the old rules, only radio and TV ads had to be filed before dissemination.

Much of the oral argument, when the court considered the rules, focused on the "objectively verifiable" standard for referring to past results and when characterizing skills. Opponents argued the term was too vague and would lead lawyers to be overly cautious in their ads.

In its opinion, the court disagreed.

"If the attorney can show, by objective facts, that the statement is true, then he has presented an objectively verifiable statement in the advertisement," the court said.

"On the other hand, making a subjective statement, such as 'the best trial lawyer in Florida,' is a misleading statement that fails to meet the requirement, because it is neither...