## Facts

- Horace Frazier Hunter, a Virginia criminal defense attorney, maintained a law-firm website that included a non-interactive, trademarked blog titled “This Week in Richmond Criminal Defense.”
- The blog contained legal commentary but largely consisted of posts describing favorable outcomes Hunter obtained in specific criminal cases.
- The website and blog did not include a disclaimer concerning the significance of past results.
- The Virginia State Bar, through its Third District Committee, initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging violations of Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5 (lawyer advertising and misleading communications) and Rule 1.6 (confidentiality).
- A three-judge circuit court panel concluded the case-result posts were attorney advertising and commercial speech that was potentially misleading without a disclaimer, and also found Hunter violated Rule 1.6 by discussing client matters without consent, even though the information was drawn from court records.
- The panel imposed a public admonition with terms, requiring a Rule 7.2(a)(3)-compliant disclaimer on each results-oriented post.
- Hunter appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, challenging the advertising and confidentiality findings and the disclaimer requirement on constitutional and rule-based grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether Hunter’s case-result blog posts constituted commercial speech/attorney advertising subject to regulation under the lawyer advertising rules.
2. Whether requiring a disclaimer for results-oriented posts under Rule 7.2(a)(3) violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether Rule 1.6 permitted attorney discipline for posting truthful, lawfully obtained information about client cases that was already contained in public court proceedings and records.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The Court held that posts discussing specific case successes and encouraging potential clients to hire Hunter were commercial speech and attorney advertising.
- The Court held the posts were not inherently misleading; at most, they were potentially misleading and could be regulated through a narrowly tailored disclaimer rather than suppression.
- The Court upheld a requirement that results-oriented advertising posts include an appropriate Rule 7.2(a)(3) disclaimer.
- The Court reversed the finding of a Rule 1.6 violation, holding that the rule did not authorize discipline for truthful statements about information already disclosed in public judicial proceedings and contained in public court records.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyer communications that describe specific case results and function to solicit business may be treated as commercial speech and regulated as attorney advertising.
- Truthful statements about past case outcomes are not inherently misleading merely because they are self-promotional; if potentially misleading, they may be addressed through additional disclosure.
- A compelled disclaimer in commercial speech is generally permissible when it is factual, uncontroversial, and reasonably related to preventing deception, and when it is narrowly tailored.
- Rule 1.6 does not prohibit an attorney from publicly discussing truthful, lawfully obtained information about a client that is already part of public court proceedings and records, absent some separate legal restriction.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Virginia to require a disclaimer on results-oriented attorney blog posts treated as commercial speech, but it rejected the use of Rule 1.6 to discipline a lawyer for accurately discussing client-related information that was already public in court records.


Hunter v. Va. State Bar ex rel. Third Dist. Comm., 285 Va. 485, 744 S.E.2d 611 (2013)