## Facts

- Louisiana adopted amendments to its lawyer-advertising rules after a study and public-comment process directed by the state legislature and implemented by the state supreme court.
- Public Citizen and Louisiana attorneys/law firms challenged several provisions regulating the content and presentation of attorney advertisements.
- The challenged provisions regulated: (1) references to past results, (2) promises of results, (3) disclaimers for client portrayals and reenactments, (4) portrayals of judges or juries, (5) nicknames/monikers/mottos implying an ability to obtain results, and (6) detailed technical specifications for disclaimer formatting in electronic/televised ads.
- The federal district court granted partial summary judgment to each side, upholding some provisions and enjoining others.
- Plaintiffs appealed as to six subparts of the advertising rules; the court of appeals reviewed the summary-judgment rulings de novo under First Amendment commercial-speech doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits categorical bans on attorney advertisements referencing past results, portraying judges or juries, or using certain nicknames/monikers/mottos.
2. Whether the First Amendment permits a categorical ban on attorney advertisements that promise results.
3. Whether disclaimer requirements for non-client portrayals and reenactments are constitutionally tailored to prevent deception.
4. Whether detailed disclaimer-format specifications for electronic/televised advertising are more extensive than necessary under the commercial-speech test.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment.
- Upheld the ban on advertisements that “promise results” as regulation of inherently misleading commercial speech.
- Held unconstitutional a blanket ban on truthful, non-misleading references to past successes/results; the state could use less speech-restrictive tools such as disclaimers.
- Held unconstitutional a total ban on portrayals of judges or juries because the state did not justify treating all such portrayals as inherently misleading and less restrictive alternatives existed.
- Upheld disclaimer requirements for non-client portrayals and fictionalized reenactments as a permissible, narrower means to reduce consumer deception.
- Upheld the restriction on nicknames/monikers/mottos that state or imply an ability to obtain results as a targeted limit on misleading or likely misleading claims.
- Held unconstitutional the technical requirements governing the manner of disclaimers in electronic/televised ads (e.g., font size, duration, and spoken-and-written requirements) because they effectively foreclosed certain ad formats and burdened more speech than necessary.

## Legal Principles

- Commercial speech that is inherently misleading, or shown by the record to be actually misleading, may be prohibited outright consistent with the First Amendment.
- Truthful, non-misleading attorney advertising is protected commercial speech and restrictions must satisfy the Central Hudson test: substantial interest, direct advancement, and a reasonable fit that is not more extensive than necessary.
- When the state’s concern is consumer misunderstanding of otherwise truthful information, mandated disclosures/disclaimers may be a permissible and less restrictive alternative to categorical suppression.
- A categorical prohibition fails where the state does not establish that the entire class of speech is inherently misleading and where narrower tools (disclaimers or targeted enforcement) can address deception.
- Disclosure mandates can violate the First Amendment when their technical demands functionally bar common advertising formats and thus restrict protected speech beyond what the state’s interests require.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit applied Central Hudson to Louisiana’s lawyer-advertising restrictions, invalidating broad prohibitions and burdensome disclaimer-format rules that suppressed truthful, non-misleading advertising, while sustaining targeted bans and disclaimer requirements aimed at preventing deception from promises of results, misleading nicknames implying guaranteed outcomes, and dramatized portrayals without clarifying disclosures.


Public Citizen, Inc. v. La. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 632 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2011)