PAPE AND CHANDLER PREVAIL IN THEIR BATTLE AGAINST THE FLORIDA BAR:

After years of battling with the Florida Bar over their pit bull logo and 1-800-PIT-BULL telephone number, Fort Lauderdale-based attorneys Marc Chandler and John Pape had their day in court on September 14, 2004, and prevailed. After nearly a 3 hour trial, the Honorable William Herring handed down his ruling. After carefully studying Pape & Chandler’s 50 page Memorandum of Law, the Florida Bar’s Memorandum of Law and hearing oral arguments from The Florida Bar and from Marc Chandler and John Pape, Judge Herring declared that Attorneys Pape and Chandler did not violate Rule 4-7.2(b)(3) or Rule 4-7.2(b)(4) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar as charged by the Bar.

More significantly, Judge Herring agreed with Pape and Chandler that the Bar’s attempt to prohibit the attorneys from using their pit bull logo and 1-800-PIT-BULL telephone number in their advertisements violated the lawyers’ right to commercial free speech in contravention of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the State of Florida’s Constitution. Judge Herring held that the Bar unconstitutionally applied the aforementioned rules in this particular case. Pape and Chandler argued that the Bar’s attempt to bowdlerize their logo and telephone number under the color of the inapplicable rules ran contrary to the First Amendment constitutional protections afforded commercial speech as laid out by the United States Supreme Court in a long line of cases. Pape and Chandler thoroughly discussed the binding caselaw in their Memorandum of Law and in oral arguments. Judge Herring accepted their arguments and ruled in their favor.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

In June of 2001, then President-elect of the Florida Bar, Todd Aronivitz, who is also a plaintiff’s personal injury attorney, filed a complaint with the Bar against Pape and Chandler claiming that the attorneys’ logo and telephone violated the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. After gathering evidence and reviewing the complaint, the Grievance Committee of the Florida Bar issued an order finding no probable cause that the logo and telephone number violated the rules and dismissed the complaint. In the fall of 2002, another plaintiff’s Florida personal injury attorney, Maria Sperando, filed a similar complaint against Pape and Chandler claiming that the logo and telephone number violated Bar Rules.

It is interesting to note that Attorney Sperando has had serious disciplinary problems with state bars in the past. In November of 2001, in Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, 554 S.E.2d 356, while handling a case in North Carolina, the trial court sanctioned Sperando for calling witnesses and defense counsel liars during the case. When determining the degree of sanctions to be applied, Sperando testified under oath that the only time she had been disciplined previously by a court or state bar was when she was late one time. The court, however, found that Sperando had failed to disclose a December 1999 order from the Superior Court of Guilford County which found Sperando to be in violation of several Rules of Professional Conduct. The Guilford County court determined that Sperando had “conducted herself in a reprehensible manner in willful violation of the rules.” The Couch court then levied heavy financial sanctions against Sperando along with revocation of her ability to practice pro hac vice in North Carolina, in part, for failing to disclose the Guilford County sanctions under oath.

Despite having determined two years earlier that the logo and telephone number did not violate the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, the Bar’s Grievance Committee, in an about-face, suddenly determined that the logo and telephone number did violate the rules. As a result, the Bar filed suit in the Supreme Court of Florida against both John Pape and Marc Chandler claiming that the attorneys’ logo and telephone number violated Rule 4-7.2(b)(3), which prohibits lawyers from making statements in advertisements that describe or characterize the quality of the lawyer’s services and Rule 4-7.2(b)(4), which prohibits lawyers from using visual images in advertisements that are not objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney and that are misleading, deceptive or manipulative. Despite the rules being amended in early 2004 to remove the “objectively relevant” portion of the rule, the Bar continued to prosecute Pape and Chandler on the ground that the logo and telephone are not objectively relevant. After several months of discovery and hearings, Judge Herring set the trial for September 14, 2004.

QUOTES FROM JOHN PAPE:

“First, we would like to express how grateful we are that the Florida Supreme Court assigned this case to a jurist as astute, diligent and studied as Judge Herring. Judge Herring not only took the time to thoroughly study all of the papers filed in this case and listen to hours of oral argument, but he also had the cognitive acuity to understand the complex constitutional issues and subtleties involved in this case.”

“We defended ourselves so vehemently against the Bar’s complaint for several reasons. First, we knew that we had done nothing wrong and that we’d never be able to look at ourselves in the mirror if we merely rolled over and quit like so many other attorneys do when faced with complaint from the Bar. It’s certainly intimidating to get sued by an organization as powerful as the Florida Bar, but we knew that our cause was a righteous one. And we were prepared to defend ourselves all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that’s what it took.”

“We knew that the higher ups at the Bar simply didn’t like our logo and telephone number and despite suing us under the color of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar they were merely trying to censor our constitutionally protected free speech because they don’t like the logo and telephone number.”

“We fought this fight for our firm and our clients, for the protections afforded commercial speech by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and for other advertising attorneys. We were empowered by the righteousness of our cause, and we are grateful that Judge Herring had the willingness and intellectual ability to comprehend the complex issues involved in this case.”

“Our pit bull logo is not a hollow charade or a lame marketing gimmick. The logo represents what we believe our firm stands for: loyalty to our clients and to each other and tenacity, determination and aggressiveness in representing our injured clients. Marc and I feel that if we are going to have a proud, loyal, tenacious and determined dog like the pit bull as our logo that it would be disingenuous to do anything but fight the Bar’s meritless case against us to the end.”

“Over the past 3 years, we have spent over $100,000.00 in our own time and money defending ourselves pro se against the Bar. But the most disconcerting aspect of the entire 3 year ordeal with the Bar, aside from the fact that the Bar can prosecute attorneys over and over again on the same case until it finds a grievance committee that issues an order of probable cause, is that it seems that the Bar is more focused on creating the superficial appearance of dignity and elitism in the legal profession by attempting to regulate what it sees as good taste in lawyer advertising than it is on focusing on what is really important. The superficial appearance of dignity does not create actual dignity or integrity. Our clients are the most important part of the profession, and the Bar should probably focus more on making sure that clients get loyal, diligent and competent representation from intellectually qualified and diligent attorneys. Service to our clients and giving them the best and most thorough representation possible and respecting the profession by leaving no stone unturned when it comes to researching legal issues and writing and arguing for our clients is what the profession should be all about. It shouldn’t be about superficial inanities like subjective perceptions of good taste in advertising. It’s not surprising to us that Attorney Sperando, who embarrassed herself and the profession with her conduct while handling a case in North Carolina and was severely sanctioned by the court for her actions, was the person who was so determined to file a complaint against us for using a pit bull logo. That’s just another example of attorneys being more focused on the superficial appearance of dignity and less concerned with actual dignity and integrity.”