THE COURT WILL CALL THE FIRST OF THE RULES CASES , IN RE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE R ULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR ADVERTISING RU LES. AS THE LAWYERS ARE COMING U P , THE COURT IS CONSIDE RINGTHAT WE WOULD HEAR THE CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE C IVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TOGETHER , BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE THES AME IS SUES , AND IF POS SIBLE , MOVE THE LAST CASE , W HICH IS A FAIRLY SHORT CASE , IF THE L AWYERS COME FOLLOWING THE ADVERTISING.OKAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE, TODAY , GET BACK TO THE RIGHT CASE. WE HAVE GOT APPEARANCE S FORTHE FLORIDA BAR FROM MS , MR , MR . TARBERT AND MR . ESBARY. H OW DO YOU DIVIDE YOUR TIME?

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE FLORIDA BAR , KELLY OVERSTREET. WHAT I WOULD LI KE TO DO IS HAVE A SHORT INTRODUCTION AND THEN WE HAVE DIFFERENT MEMBERS HERE FROM THE BAR THAT, DEPENDING UPON THE QUESTIONS ASKE D, WILL RESPOND AND THEN ANY REMAINING TIME WILL BE USED IN REBUTT AL.

CHIEF JUST ICE: THAT IS FINE. YOU MAY PROCEED.

MAY IT PLEASE THE CO URT. IN MA RC H 2 004 , I APPOINTED AN ADVERT ISING TA SK FORCE TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADVERTISING , ATTORNEY ADVERTISING RULES. THE IDEA WAS TO ATT EMPT TO CLARIFY AND IMPROVE THE RULES. WE APPO INTED A VERY DIVERSE COMMITTEE, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE AREAS OF PRACTICE , THELOCATION, AND OTHER FACTORS. PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ADVERTISED AND THOSE THAT DIDN'T, BECAUSE WE THOUGHTIF YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE RULES , YOU NEED TO HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY DE ALING WITH THESE RULES AND HAVING TO SUBMIT ADVERTISEMENTS. THE TASK FORCE MET A NUMBER OF TIMES , AND SPAENT LA RGE AMOUNT OF TIME , CONSIDERING THE RULES AND ANY NECESSARY CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE PROPOSED. ULTIMATELY , THERE WERE SOME CHANGES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO THE BAR'SBOARD OF GOVERNORS. MOST OF THOSE CHA NGES WERE APPROVED AND ARE BEFORE YOUTODAY.THE ONES THAT WERE NOT APPROVED WERE PRIMARILY LE SS RESTRICTIVE THAN WH AT WE HAVE PRESENTLY. M ANY OF THE CHANGES CLARIFY AND REORGANIZE THE RULES AND MAKE THEM EA SIER TO UNDERSTAND. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY IS A PREREVIEW, REQUIRED OF ALL RADIO AND TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS, WHICH WE THINK IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT. THE WAY WE HAVE DIV IDED OUR T IME , WE HAVE JODY EBBETS , WHO WAS THE ADVERT ISING VICE CHAIR AND IS THE CHAIR OF THE CURRENT COMMITTEE ON ADVERTISING , THAT WILL BE RESPONDING TO Q UESTIONS DEALING WITH THE WEB SITE AND TO THE PROC ESS THAT THE T ASK FORCE UTILIZED INCOMING UP WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAVE BARRY RICHARDS WHO WAS AVAILABLE TODAY TO DEAL WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND ANY QUESTIONS THE COURT MIGHT HAVE ON THE PREREVIEW OF ADVERTISING AS IT RELATES TO R ADIO AND T V, AND F INALLY OUR CLEANUP H ITTER , WE HAVE ETHICS COUNSEL ELIZABETH TARBERT , WHO WILL BE HANDLING BASICALLY ALL OF THE PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS OF CHANGES TO THE RULES AND ANYQUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ONTHE TECHNICALITIES OF THOSERULES.ON BEHALF THE BAR, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT APPROVE THE CHANGES WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU AS REQUESTED IN THE BAR'S PETITION. AND AT THIS POINT , I WILL T URN THE PODI UM OVER TO MS , WHO CAN SORT OF HANDLE WHO WILL -- T O MS . TARBERT, WHO CAN SORT OF HAND LE WHO WILL BE THE BE ST ONE TO RESP ONSE, BASED UPON THE COURT'S INQUIRY . THANK YOU .

JUSTICE: I G UESS I WOULD START WITH, I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE APPROACH UNDER , I GUESS IT IS 4-7 GENERALLY , BUT THE PROVISION THAT WOULD E XEMPT FROM THE RULES , THE LAWYER TO LAWYER O R LA URO FORME R COMMUNE -- OR LAWYER AND F ORMER CL IENT COMMUNICATIONS , AND ONE , HAVING BE EN AT THIS NOW FOR 25 YEARS , AND IN VARIOUS DEBA TES AND REVISIONS OF THESE RULES , MY ONE CON CERN , OVERRIDING CONCERN , IS THAT N O ONE BE G IVEN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BY THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE. AND THAT INCLUDES ADVERTISING.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS. ACTUALLY THOSE TWO PROVISIONS, REALLY, SEEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT ALREADYEXISTS IN THE RULES , IN 4-7.1 , THE CO MMENT TO ITSAYS THAT COMMUNICATION --

JUSTICE: HERE IS MY CONCERN.I GOT IN THE MAI L THIS PAST WEEK , AN ADVERTIS EMENT SENT TO ME. I ASSUME BECAUSE I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR . IT IS THE PRO DUCTS LIABILITY LAW FIRM IN FLORIDA. IT LIST S EXAMPLES OF FIRM RECOVERIES. 30.1 MI LLION , 19 .5 MIL LION , 15 MILLION. AND THEN I T HAS THESE PICTURES OF FAILED AUTOMOBILES AND CRASHED AUBLT. MY QU ESTION -- CR ASHED KAUBLS. MY QUESTION IS , IS THAT , ARE THE RULES PRES ENTLY AND AS GOING TO BE A MENDED , INTENDED T O ALLOW THIS T YPE OF ADVERTISEMENT? AND IS IT ALLO WED T O G O OUT GENERALLY , OR WHO IS I T ALLOWED TO GO TO AND WH Y?

THE KIND OF BROCHURE THAT YOU ARE REF ERRING TO IS PERMITTED TO BE SENT OUT C URRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENTRULES , TO OTHER LAWYERS. YOU DO RECEIVE THOSE BROCHURES BECA USE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR . THERE ARE LAWYERS THAT WILL PURCHASE LISTS FROM THE FLORIDA BAR OF ALL BAR MEMBERS IN A PARTICULAR CIRCUIT AND SEND OUT PAMPHLETS LI KE THE ONE YOU JUST DISPLA YED. THE CURRENT RULES AND THE COMMUNITY TO RULE 7-4.1 DOES SAY THAT COMMUN ICATIONS BETWEEN LAWYERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES, SO THE BAR CURRENTLY INTERPRETS THAT COMMENT AS MEANING ALL COMMUNICATION T WS LAWYERS , INCLUDING THEKIND OF BROCHURES TO WHICHYOU REFER. IF YOU REFER TO RULE 4-7.4-A , LAWYERS CAN DIRECTLY SO LICIT THEIR OWN CURRENT AND FORMER CLIENTS, SO THOSE KINDS O F BROCHURES WOULD ALSO UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, BE PERMISSIBLE FOR CURRENT AND FORMER CLIENTS. IF YOU CAN PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THEM AND SAY THOSEKINDS OF THINGS TO THEM AND BE UNREGULATED , THERE IS REALLY NO THING TO STOP THAT KIND OF BROCHURE FROM BEINGSENT TO LAWYERS , LAWYERS ' CURRENT CLIENTS.

JUSTICE: THAT CERTAINLY GIVES A BIG ADVANTAGE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE PRACTICE FOR 2 0 YEARS RA THER THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN PRA CTICE FOR TWO YEARS , CORRECT, BECAUSE THOSE ARETHE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN FOR 20 YEARS , ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT M ORE FORMER CLIENTS.

WELL, IN SOME CASES THAT IS TRUE AND IN SOME CASE S THAT IS NOT TR UE. THERE ARE NEW LAWYERS THAT HAVE NUME ROUS CLIE NTS, TO O. WHEN I PRACTICED IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE , I HAD LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF CLIENTS , SO YOU WOULD HAVE SAID THAT I COULD HAVE HAD ANUMBER OF CLIENTS THAT I COULD HAVE - -

JUSTICE: YOU DIDN'T N EED TO ADVERTISE TO THOSE PEOPLE.

I AM NOT SURE THEY WOULDHAVE THE MO NEY TO HIRE ME ANYWAY.

JUSTICE: THIS POSITION ON FORMER CLIENTS, I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND CURRENT CLIENTS AND SOME FORM OF PROTECTED COMMUNICATION, BUT A FORMER CLIENT , WHY WOULD FORMER CLIENTS NOT BE AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC , LISS IS TIGING IT OR -- S LITING IT OR SOME THING BE YOND -- SOLICIT ING THEIR LEGAL BUSINESS, BEYOND ADVERTISING , SOLICITING THEIR L E GAL BUSINESS, AND WHY IS IT A DIFFERENT STANDARD AS WE STAND BA CK FROM THE RELATIONSHIP? MAYBE I REPRES ENTED SOMEBODY 25 YEARS AGO , AND TODAY THEY ARE REALLY IN A N O DIFFERENTPOSITION THAN A ME MBER OF THE GE NERAL PUBLIC. I MA VEN CONSIDERED THEM. I MAY HAVE -- I MAY HAVE ENCOUNTERED THEM. I MAY HAVE ENCOUNTERED FOLKS AT CHURCH , AND FORMER CLIENTS SUCH AS JUSTICE WELLS , AND I AM NOT SURE HOW WE HAVE BEEN DO ING IT IS THE REAL ANSWER AS WE L OOK AT WHAT THE RULE OUGHT TO BE .

THE RATIONALE FOR WHY WEHAVE DO NE THAT IN THE PAST IS THIS I S NOT SOMEBODY WHOIS STRA NGER TO THE LAWYER. THEY HAVE ACTUALLY CH OSEN THAT LAWYER TO REPRESENTTHEM IN THE PAST , SO THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE KNOWN, IT IS ALREADY KNOWN TO THAT CLIENT WHAT THE LAWYER'S QUALIFICATIONS ANDEXPER IENCE ARE. THIS IS SOMEONE THEY HAVE PERSONALLY SELECTED.

JUSTICE: IT CHANGES. YOU SEE THE THINGS ABOUT THE RESULTS AND HOW GO OD WE ARE AND WHAT WE ARE DOING , AND THAT ALL MAY BE WELL AND GOOD, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM AS THOUGH I MAY HAVE REPRESENTED SOMEBODY 25 YEARS AGO AS A FORMER CLIENT, AND THEY ARE IN THAT SAME CATEGORY. THEY HAVE NO I DEA. I HAVE HAD NO DEAL INGS WITH THEM FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.

THAT IS A P O LICY CALL THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE. THE BAR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE EXIS TING RULE ARE THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LE SSER N EED OF PROTEC TION. THEY ARE NOT SOMEBO DY WHO I S A TO TALLY UNSOLICITED, COLD KIND OF CONT ACT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WOULD IT APPLY IF SOMEBODY HAD REPRESENTED A CLASS? WOULD IT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF MARKET GO BROKE ASSURE TO GO TO ALL MEM BERS OF A -- MARKETING BROC HURE TO GO TO ALL MEMB ERS OF A CLASS?

I AM NOT SURE IT CAME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. SOMEBODY IN THAT CLASS WASPERHAPS IN CONTACT WITH THE L AWYER BUT PERHAPS NOT THE ENTIRE CLASS BECAUSE THEREWAS NO RELATED CONTAC T.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS A RELATED QUESTION AND I GUESSIT HAS BEEN AN ON GOING POLICY DETERMINATION, BUT WE CONTINUE WITH THE NOTION THAT, IN AN ADVERTISEMENT , THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE RES ULTS OBTAINED. SO THAT HERE , IN THIS BROCHURE THAT JUSTICE WELLS REFERENCED, THERE IS EXAMPLES OF RECOVERIES IN PRODUCTS LIAB ILITY CASES OF SOME SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNTS . I KNOW THIS FIRM , AND I AM SURE THAT MOST O F THESE , THAT, I AM SURE THEY ARE NOT MISREPRESENTING , HOPEFULLYTHEY ARE NOT , THESE AMOUNTS , AND I GUESS WHAT I WONDER WAS WH ERE WE HAVE GO NE TO IN ADVERTISING, AND I HAVE TO SAY I AM NOT A FA N OF ADVERTISING. I THINK IT HAS DONE EVERYTHING TO DE MEAN OUR PROFESSION RATHER THAN TO DO WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE DONE , WHICH IS TO MAKE THE PUBLIC MORE INFORMED. WE ALLOW THIS SORT OF PUFFING , WHERE A FIRM SAYS WE ARE O PEN ALL NIGHT OR WE HAVE BEEN IN B U SINESS AND WE ARE THE ONES TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, BUT WE DON'T ALLOW THE FIRM TO GIVE THE FACTS , WHICH ARE THESE ARE RECOVERIES THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD. SO WE SORT OF FO STER THIS IDEA THAT SOME ADVERTISEMENT IN TALLAHASSEE A BOUT SOME GENTLEMAN WHO WAS, HIMSELF A VICTIM OF AN INJURY, AND THAT IS WHY HE BECAME APERSONAL INJURY LAWYER. THAT IS AB OUT AS RELEVANT TO A DECISION AS WHAT , THAT HE IS A GOOD LITTLE LEAGUE COACH OR SOMETHING , SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WAS THE ISSUE OF WHY NOT ALLOW RESULTS OBTAINED AND STOP ALL THESE ADJECTIVES THAT REALLY CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED.I ME AN, THESE ARE FACTS THAT CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY THE BAR AS TO WHETHER THEY ARETRUE OR NOT , BUT ALL THE ADJECTIVES THAT ARE U SE D , THEY ARE EXCELLENT , HARDWORKING, AGGRESSIVE , YOUKNOW, THAT IS JUST PUFFING! THAT IS MY QUE STION , IS WHAT A BOUT RESU LTS OB TAINED AND WHY SHOULDN'T WE ALLOW RESULTS OBTAINED , AND STOP ALL THE , THIS , THESE OTHER DESCRIPTIVE PHRA SES?

WELL , JUSTICE PARIENTE , SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIVE PHRASES THAT YOU REFER TO ARE PROHIBIT ED. STATEMENTS CHARACTERIZING THE QUALITY OF LE GAL SERVICES, SUCH A S EXCELLENT OR "PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY L EGAL SERVICES", THOSE ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE CURRENT RULES.AS A PR IOR RESULT , AL THOUGH THE ACTUAL VERDICT OR FACTSOF THE SETTLEMENT CAN BE OBTAINED, THE BAR'S POSITION IS THE UNSOPHISTICATED PUBLIC IS N'T GOING TO KNOW WHAT THOSE MEA N. EVEN THO UGH THEY MIGHT HAVE THE BARE FACT S THAT THE PERSON RECEIVED A $1 MILLION V ERDICT , IT WAS REALLY A $10 MILLION CASE. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WENT INTO MAKING THAT CASE THAT GOT THAT VE RDICT , WHAT EVER IT WAS, AND THE PERSON'S OWN CASE.

JUSTICE: WHY , THEN , SHOULD WE ALLOW THAT TO BE CIRCULATED, T O MEMBERS OF THE BAR , BECAUSE M OST OF THESE CASES WE KNOW IN REALITY COME FROM REFE RRING LAWYERS. THESE PAMPHLETS ARE GOING TO BE SENT ON TO THE CLIENTS THAT, IN DIVORCE FIRMS , I MEAN, THAT IS THE N ATURE OF THE BUSINESS , AND SO ITSEEMS TO ME WE EITHER ALLOW IT OR WE DON'T ALLOW IT. PERIOD!

WELL , JUSTICE WELLS, THERATIONALE FOR WHY WE ALLOW IT HIS LAWYERS ARE NOT AN UNSOPHISTICATED PUBLIC.THEY DO HAVE THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO PARTICULAR VERDICTS ARE A SETTLEMENTS ARE AND BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOTTHOSE ARE ACTUALLY GOOD RESULTS THAT A LAWYER OBTAINED OR WHET HER THEY ARE NOT.

JUSTICE: LET ME AS K A QUESTION ABOUT THE WEB. MR . EBBETS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GIVE YOUR APPEARANCE.

THIS IS CH OBE EB BETS , VICE-CHAIR OF THE WEB SITE ADVERTISING FORCE .

JUSTICE: WHAT IS THEAPPROACH HE RE THAT THE BAR--

I THINK THE JUSTICEES ARE WRESTLING WITH WHAT THE TA SK FORCE WRESTLED WITH IN T RYING TO FIND HARMONY AMONG THE , AMON GST THE CONFLICTING ISSUE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM GENERAL ADVERTISING AND LE TTING LAWYERS AS MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE PO INTED OUT IN HIS BRIEF , THE CONCEPT OF MARKETING.HOW FAR CAN MARKETING GO TO ALLOW LAWYERS TO PUT THEIR NAME OUT THERE AND THEIR SUC CESSES, AS FA R AS THEIR PAST RESULTS , AND YET NOT INFLICT HARM ON THE PUBLIC THAT CAN BE MI SLED BY THAT, AND THAT DOVETAILED INTO THE MONSTROUS PROBLEM OF THE WEB, WHICH IS IN RE ALITY THE ADVERTISING TOOL FOR THE FUTURE YOUR OF ALL LAWYERS. I WILL TELL THE COURT THAT W E KNOW THAT MORE THAN 40,000 FLORIDA LAWYERS HAVE WEB SI TES. WEB SITES CAN B E FROM ONE PAGE TO 500 P A GES , AND AS THIS COUR T IS PROB ABLY WELL AWARE, A WEB SITE CAN NOT O NLY BE CHA NGED DAILY. IT CAN BE CHANGED HOURLYLY IN A B LOG SETTING .

JUSTICE: THAT BEING SAID , IT SEEMS TO ME THAT OUR REAL JUD GMENT NEED S TO BE THE V ALUE SY STEM THAT IS IN PLACE, NOT WHAT THE WEB CAN DO, AND THAT CONTROLS OUR VALUES, AND THAT IS WHAT I F EAR. I START LO OKING AT THIS AND WE START EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGY, JUST BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS T HERE AND THAT IS GREAT, BUT TECHNOLOGY CANBE OUR DE ATH IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL.

JUSTICE LE WIS THAT , IS WHAT W E CONCLUDED IN GOING BACK TO THE TASK FORCE TIME AND AGAIN AND SAID WE MUST USE A SET OF RULES THAT PUTS ITS ARMS AR OUND THE ENORMOUS COMPLEXITY OF THE WEB ITSELF , AND THAT IS WHY WE DID NOT END THE PROCESS BUT ARE CONTINUING THE PROC ESS TO DEAL WITH IT , AND JUSTICE WELLS, IF I MAY CONTINUE, THE WEB WOULD ALLOW A LAWYER PRESENTLY UNDER CURRENT RULES TO GIVE PAST RESULTS , GIVE STATEMENTS OF ITS SUCCESSOR ABILITIES DIFFERENTLY FROM ANY OTHER FORM OF ADVERTISING, BECAUSEWE HAVE LOOKED AT IT AS A KIND O F CURIOUS PLACE OF INFORMATION U PON RE QUEST . SOMEONE IS SEE KING OUT TO GOTO THE WEB SITE , VERSUS BEING PUS HED UPON THEM IN A TELEVISION AD OR A P HONE B OOK AD. THAT IS A , MAYBE A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, AND THAT IS WHYWE HAVE NOT STOPPED THERE , AND THAT IS WHY I AM ST ILL W ORKING WITH THE MEMBER S OF THE BAR TO FIND A BETTER SOLUTION TO IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE CANTERO HAS A QUESTION.

THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE TASK FORCE ANDBOARD OF GOVERNORS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE?

ABSOLUTELY. THE TASK FORCE , AND I WILL TELL YOU CAN DIDLY , BOTH THE 2004 TASK FORCE AND THE PRESENT COMMITTEE ON WEB SITE ADVERTISING , WOULD LIKE TO FIND IT TO BE S I MPLY INFORMATION UPON REQUEST , AND EXEMPT IT COMPLETELY F ROM ADVERTISING RULES. THE BOARD O F GOVERNORS WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT CONCLUSION INITIALLY AND IT IS NOT HAPPY WITH IT NOW , AND I WILL TE LL YOU THAT W E HAVE DONE A N ENORMOUS AMOUNT O F WORK, HUNDREDS OF HOURS L OOKING AT WHAT OTHER STATES DO , LOOKING AT THE ABA MO DEL , AND I WILL RE MIND THIS COURTAS IT WELL KNOW S THAT , OUR STATE , FL ORIDA , HAS SOME OF THE MOST S T RICT , AND I F A VOR THAT STRICT , ADVERTISINGRULES IN THE COUNTRY. WE CAN'T SIMPL Y FO LLOW THE A BA MOD EL BECAUSE IT IS MORE LACKS THAN OUR O WN FLO RIDA -- MORE LAX THAN OUR OWN FLORIDA RULES.

JUSTICE: WHAT IF A POTENTIAL CLIENT CALLS UP A LAW FIRM AND SAYS I WOULD L IKE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT Y OUR FIRM, DOES THE BAR REGULATE THE INF ORMATION UPON REQUEST?

WE ALLOW A LAWYER PRESENTLY TO SEND OUT BROCHURES. I WA NT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT MUST BE CLEAR AS AN OVERRIDING CONCERN TO ALL ADVERTISING RULES.THEY MUST BE HONEST. THEY AL WAYS MUST BE HONEST. THE ABA MODEL SAYS , AND THAT IS IT A SIMPLISTIC APP ROACH TO THE ABA MODEL IS THAT THE LAWYER MUST ALWAYS BE HONEST.

JUSTICE: IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT A POTENTIAL CLIENT VOLUNTARILY GOES TO TO FIND OUT INFO RMATION ABOUT THE FIRM, HO W IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM REQU ESTING A BRO CHURE?

THAT IS PART OF THE DEBATE. THE WEB SITE, ITSELF , IT LULL T ACTU ALLY IN EARLIER FORMAT -- IT ACTUALLY IN EARLIER FORMAT S , YOUR HONOR , THEY HAVE L OOKED AT A WEB SITE FRONT PAGE , OR AS WE CALL IT WHEN YOU GO TO THE WEB SITE YOU GET A FRONTPAGE AND THEN BE HIND THAT , YOU GET A HOMEPAGE , AND WEHAVE SAID LE T'S SANITIZE IT LIKE A DOOR AND MAKE BEHIND IT THE STUFF THAT YOU CAN PUT ALL OF THE THINGS ON. THAT, AGAIN --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN IS THE REPORT GOING TO BE COMPLETE? WHAT IS THE TIME FR AME FOR THE COMMITTEE?

JUSTICE PARIENTE , WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING COMING UP AT THE ANN UAL MEETING IN BOCA RATON IN JUNE. AT THAT TIME WE WILL FORMULATE A N OTHER SET OF SUGGESTED RULES. THE LAST TWO VOTES OF THIS WEB SITE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN TO MAKE IT INFORMATION UPON REQUEST BASIS AND HAVE EXEMPTING IT FROM THE RULESBUT HAVING REPORTED THAT TO THE BOARD OF GOVE RNORS , THEYARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT , SO WE ARE GOING TO CRAFT RULES THAT ARE SPECIF IC TO THE WEB BUT IN HARMONY WITH THE O VERALL ADVERTISING RULES , BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT , THIS COURT HAS SAID OV ER AND OVER AGAIN , T HERE MUST BE CONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TREAT ADVERTISING , REGARDLESS OF THE ME DIA , ANDWE, IF IT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING DI RECT, IT MUST HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR BEING DIRECT, IN THIS CASE THE WEB SITE. Y ES, JUSTICE. SORRY.

JUSTICE: THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS ON THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE WEB AS OPPOSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL LAWYER'S WEB PAGE, THE SIDE BAR ADVERTISEMENT LIKE GOOGLE, YOU GE T THE POP-UPSOR WHAT EVER THAT DIRECT SOMEBODY TO A PARTICULAR SIT E. YOU ARE LOOKING INTO THAT AND HOW WE REGULATE THOSE?

YES , JUSTICE, WE ARE. ACTUALLY, AGAIN , THE GENTLEMAN TO M Y RIGHT WERE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE , AND VERY BRIGHT , AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND BR IGHT IN THEIR INTELLECTUAL APPROACH TO THESE THINGS. MR . ADVERSARY SAYS THAT IS A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE POP -UP ADS , AND H E SHOWED ME SOMETHING THIS AMON G, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU COULD GO TO A NEWSPA PER WEB SITE LIKE THE ST. PETE TIMES AND YOUREAD AN AR TICLE ABOUT A LAWYER AND THEN YOU GET A POP-UP THAT SO LICIT S IF YOUARE REA DING THAT STORY.

JUSTICE: THAT IS HOW THEY POP-UP , IS IT ADVERTISES TO THOSE PARTICULAR SECTIONS AND THAT IS MY CONCERN.

JUSTICE BELL , WE ARE O'CLOCK LOOKING AT THAT . -- WE ARE LOOK ING AT THAT .

UNDER THE RULES, POP-UP ADS AND ALL OTHER BANNER ADS ARE REGULATED AS ANY OTHER FORM OF MEDIA , THE SAME AS PRINT ADVERTISEMENT .

JUSTICE: I GU ESS MY CONCERN IS THE POP-UP ITSE LF W OULD BE VERY EA SY TO CONSTRUCT IN A WAY THAT ITWOULD NOT VIOLATE THE ADVERTISING RULES BUT WOULD DIRECT YOU YOU TO A WEB PAGE THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE , CIRCUMVENT O R GO AROUND THE ADVERTISING RULES. IF YOU ACCEPT THAT A SEARCH FOR A PARTI CULAR WEB SITE G IVES YOU G REATER LATITUDE, IS MY CONCERN.

IT IS CORRECT , ALTHOUGH THE PE RSON WOULD STILL BE HAVING TO MAKE THAT CHOICE TO GO TO THAT WEB SITE , IN ADDITION THAT WEB SITE WOULDSTILL BE SUBJECT TO E VERY SINGLE REGULATION OTHER THAN THE PROHIBITION AGA INST PRIOR RESULTS AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST STATEMENTS CHARACTERI ZINGTHE QUALITY, AND IT WOULD NOT BE SUB JECT TO REQU IRE REVIEW BY THE FLO RIDA BAR , ALTHOUGH --

JUSTICE: IF WE, HOW EVER , ARE ST ILL LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE ABOU T WEB SITES , WHY WOULDN'T IT BE MORE PRUDENT TO HAVE A WEB SITE, HAVE THE SAME RESTRICTION AS OTHERKINDS OF ADVERTISEMENT S CONCERNING THE RESULTS ANDQUALITY OF SERVICES, AND THEN IF W E SEE DOWN THE R OAD , THAT MA YBE WEB SITES DON 'T REALLY NEED IT, WE CAN CHANGE IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE DIFFICULT , IT SEEMSTO ME, TO GO THE OTHER WAY.

THE ANSWER TO THAT IS AS SIMPLY AS I CAN PUT IT , IS THAT WITH 40,000 WEB SITESOUT THERE AND WITH THE WEB SITES HAVING BEEN SUBJ ECT TO BAR REGULATION , THEY HAVE BEEN ALWAYS SUBJECT TO BAR REGULATION, BUT WE HAVE NOT YET HA D AN ENFORCEMENT POLICY TO CH ECK LAWYER WEB SITES. AGAIN , CAN DOR , HERE , I THIN K IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. WHEN WE STARTED LOOKIN G AT WEB SITES , OUR BAR COUNSEL LOOKED AT BOARD OF GOVERNOR WEB SITES AND SA DLY ADVISED MANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS THEIR OWN WEBSITES WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULA TIONS .

JUSTICE: RIGHT NOW THEY SHOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER ADVERTISEMENT RULES CONCER NING --

EX CEPT FOR THOSE EXCEPTIONS AND THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE MOST LAWYERS USE THEIR WEB SITES TO TALK ABOUT THEIR LAWYERS, THE ACHIEVEMENT S OF THEIR LAWYERS , THEIR PAST SUCCESSES, THE DYNAMICS O F THEIR LAW FIRM, SO THOSE EXCEPTIONS WH ILE THEY MAY NOT LOOK IMPORTANT ARE EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT,BECAUSE MOST LAWYERS HAVE USED THE WEB SITE FOR THAT EXACT PURPOSE , BEL IEVE AG O THAT THE WEB SITE I S DIFFERENT FROM OTHER FORMSOF ADVERTISING IN A P LACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING THEM OUT NOT THAT THEY ARE SEEKING PEOPLE OUT.

JUSTICE: ONE QUESTION AND I KNOW YOU ARE OUT OF TIME , AND PER HAPS MR . BOGGS IS SIT TING IN THE BACK TO ANSWER AFTER THE OTHERS HAVEAN OPPORTUNITY TO T A LK TO US. B UT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE STATISTICS ON THE BAR PROSE CUTION OF ETHICAL VIOLATIONS OUT OF THE ADVERTISING RULE .

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

PROB ABLY R E CEIVE BETWEEN 200 AND 300 COMPL AINTS ABOUT LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT S PER YEAR. OF THOSE, MA NY OF THEM ARE E ITHER DISMISSED BY BAR STAFF OR THEY ARE HA NDLED IN A FA IRLY LOW-LEVEL FASHION , GETTING A M INOR MISCONDUCT , PUBLIC REPRI MAND OR DIVERSION.IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING DISCIPLINE IN LAWYER ADVERTISING CASE S, IT WOULD DEPEND. IF IT WAS A MISREPRESENTATION , OBVIOUSLY --

JUSTICE: DO WE KNOW HOW MANY ON A YEARLY BASIS , W E HAVE FIND INGS OF PROBABLE C AUSE ?

THAT , I THINK SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON.

JUSTICE: AND HOW MANY WE HAVE IN WHICH SDPIP LIEN -- DISCIPLINE IS ACTUALLY IMPOSED.

WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU WITH THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.WE WILL H EAR FROM --

CASEY EBBS BARRY, JR. , -- CASEY EB SARY JR., AND MY SON , AND HE HAS HEARD THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COUR T. HE IS NINE AND WAS IN THE SOAP BOX DERBY LAST WE EK . HE HAD A GREAT TIME.I WA NTED TO ADDRESSSOMETHING THAT JUSTICE CANTERO QUESTIONED ANDSOMETHING THAT JUSTICE BELL HAD ASKED ABOUT, AND THAT IS WHAT IS THE SCIENCE OF THE INTERNET, AND SC IENCE OF THE INTERNET IS THAT, WHEN ONE PUTS AN INQU IRY IN A WEB BROWSER , SOMETIMES YOU YOU WILL SEE WEB SITE LI STED AS HTTP:// : // THAT IS A COMP UTER COMMAND. ALL SCIENTISTS AG REE THAT , WHEN YOU MAKE A COMMAND IN THE FORM O F A HTTP:// COMMAND, THAT YOU YOU ARE REQUESTING INFORMATION. THAT IS ACTUALLY HOW IT IS DEFINED , AND THE REAL PAINFUL DETAIL S ARE IN MY BRIEF AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT. SO THE SCIENCE OF THIS INCLUDES THE FACT THAT THESE ARE ACTUALLY REQU ESTS FOR INFORMATION, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT CAME BEFORE THE ADVERTISINGTASK FORCE THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT, NOR IS THERE AN YTHING THAT COULD CHANGE THAT. ALL EX PERTS AGREE.

JUSTICE: I ME AN, IT IS THE SAME THING. I PICK UP A NEWSPAPER. I PICK UP A NEWSPAPER FOR INFORMATION, SO THAT IS MY HTTP:// I N HARD COPY, SO WHY SHOULD THAT NOT BE THE SAME INFORMATION I CAN GET FROM PRINTED MATERIAL THAT APPLIES AC ROSS ELECTRONIC MATERIAL?

WELL , ON YOUR UP I N , YOU YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A -- ON YOUR U P IN , YOU ARE GOINGTO HAVE A -- O N YOUR NEWSPAPER, YOU YOU ARE GOINGTO HAVE A NUMBER OF ART DELAYS THAT YOU HAVE N'T -- OF ARTICLES THAT YOU WEREN'TFAMILIAR WITH, AND YOU CAN NARROWLY TAYLOR YOUR REQUEST.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOUKNOW WHAT YOU ARE DO ING.

IF YOU ARE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SERIOUSLY , I WAN TED TO MAKE JUSTICE L EWIS --

JUSTICE: T HAT WAS HIS ANSWER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT WAS HIS ANSW ER.

JUSTICE: A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. CLERKS OFFICES ARE GOING TO THE INTERNET , PUBLIC RECORDS. LET'S SAY AN INDIVIDUAL HAS A D UI TI CKET AND THEY GO TO THE CL ERK'S SITE TO TRY T O FIGURE OUT WHERE THEIR COURTIS OR WHATEVER AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO RAISEMONEY , SE LLS ADVERTISEMENTS OR LINK S TO THOSE , AND SO ALAWYER GIVES A POP-UP, AND IT SAYS DO YOU LIE ? AND THAT IS I T , AND YOU POP THERE AND THEN YOU YOU GO TO THE SITE THAT SAYS I HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL OVER 80 PER CENT, OVER 90 PERCENT .

I THINK WE S HOULD REGULATE. THAT I THINK YOU SH OULD REGULATE CONTEXT -DRIVEN ADS. FOR EX AMPLE THE NEWS PAPER AD THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE LO UNGE EARLIER. SOME OF THE TECHNOLOG ICALALLOWS IF THERE IS A ARTI CLE ABOUT CAR CRASHES , THERE ARE CERTAIN KEY WORDS THAT YOU CAN BUY THAT WILL GENERATE AN AD THAT IS CONTEXT DRIVEN AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE REA DING ABOUT C ERTAIN ISSUES DOWN THE SIDE OF THE PAGE . I THINK YOU SHOULD REGULATE THOSE. THOSE ARE SPONSORED ADS. A T THE TOP OF GOOGLE RESULTS, THOSE ARE SP ONSORED ADS. THOSE ARE ADS WHERE PEOPLE BOUGHT KEY WORDS TO GEN RAT AN AD AND VIRTUALLY NONE OF THOSE COMPLY WITH THE BAR RULES, AT LEAST THE ONES I HAVE SEEN .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT ABOUT THE YE LLOW BA NKS. AREN'T YOU T RYING TO - - THE YELLOW PAGES. AREN'T YOU TRYING TO FIND A LAWYER?

YES, THEY DO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT, SOME ONE IS TR YING TO FIND AN ATTORNEY. H OW IS IT DIFFERENT , A S FAR AS WHAT, IF WE ARE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD BE TR EATING AND BE CONSISTENT IN HOW WE TREAT ADVERTISING , I AM JUST HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING HOW THIS IS SIMPLY A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO THE AB ILITY TO SAY , WELL , NOW I AM GOING TO FIND ALL THE ATTORNEYS THAT DO PERSONAL INJURY WORK. I AM A MUCH MORE , YOU KNOW , SOMEBODY WHO IS KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND THEN THEY G ET ALL OF THESE FIRMS , AND THE Y FIND OUT WHAT THE RESULTS OB TAINED WERE.YOU SEE, I MIGHT SAY I THINKTHAT IS GOOD FOR ADS, TOO , BUT WHY NOT B E CONSISTENT IN HOW WE TREAT IT?

WELL , I THINK THE WAY TO BE CONSISTENT IS TO SEPARATE O UT, I MA DE A LI TTLE LIST HERE, BANNER ADS, POP-UPS , SPONSORED LISTING S. THOSE SHOULD BE SEPARATEDOUT FROM LAWYER WEB PAGES , BECAUSE THEORETICCALLY THE COURT'S WEB SI TE IS A LAWYER'S WEB PAGE . THEORETICLY ALL OF THE CONTENT -D RIVEN B LOGS, ALL OF THE WEB SITES THAT ARE OWNED BY LAWYERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN A COU PLE OF HIGH PROFILE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT, WERE TRUE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND PLEADINGS , AND FREE SP EECH FIRST AMENDMENT FOR DEBATE, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT PEOPLE AGREED UPON. FOR EXAMPLE THOSE BL OGS ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THE LAWYER'S WEB SITE TO POST COMMENT, AND YOU YOUEND UP , I GOO ING HE WILLED THE -- I GOO GLED THE TERM SLIPPERY SLOPE, AND FIRST OF ALL IT IS A WE AK AR GUMENT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ARGUE , BUT INTERESTING LY ENOUGH THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PAGES THAT TALK ABOUT THAT , BUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE YELLOW PAGES AND WHAT HA PPENED WITH ADVERTISEMENT S AND I AM SURE IT HAPPENED IN NEW O R LEANS , TOO , WHERE THEY SAID IT IS ONLY GOING TO AND COUPLE OF INCHES OVER THE LE VY. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE APROBLEM , AND PRETTY SOON IT TAKES MONTHS TO PUMP THE WATER OUT. ONCE THE HO RSE IS OUT OF THEBARN, IT IS HARD TO GET HIMBACK IN THERE. LAWYER WEB SITES ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM LAWYER ADVERTISING , AND I THINK THECOMMITTEE APPOINTED, THE WEB SITE ADVERTISING COMMITTEE , DICTATED THE RESULTS RIGHTOUT OF THE B OX .

JUSTICE: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU T YPE I N WWW.EBSBARYWAGNERPA.COM.YOU WANT A LISTING. IT IS JUST LIKE A P HONE CALL REQUESTING A BROCHURE. IT SEEMS TO ME A POP-UP AD OR ANYWHERE ELSEWHERE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR GEN ERAL INFORMATION BUT NOT ASPECIFIC INFORMAT IONATION ABOUT A PARTICULAR LAW FIRM.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEARTO US.

JUSTICE: AS FAR AS CONSISTENCY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT WEB SITES FROM DOING CE RTAIN THINGS AND CONSIDER THOSE ADVERTISING, THEN WE NEED TO CONSIDER BROCHURES ADVERTISING AS WELL, BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME KIND OF THING EXCEPT IT IS LOW TECH VE RSUS HIGH TECH .

AND THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD.YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN WHAT YOU ARE REGULATING. WITH THE WEB SITES, WE HAVE GOT, IN THE COMMENTS , I AM FALLING IN THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST IN THE WEB SITES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS IN THE RULE 7-4.6 , YOU HAVE GOT AN ACCIDENTAL TOURISTWHO ACCIDENTALLY EN DED UP ON A WEB SITE. IT TALKS ABOUT WEB SITES NOT BEING EAS ILY CATAGORIZED AS TO INFORMATION TO REQUEST FROM A PERSPE CTIVE CLIENT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST , AND IT GOES ON AND ON. IT IS EASI LY CATAGORIZED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HOW DO YOU ANSWER, MAYBE YOU DI DN'T OR DID.

I WILL NOW. CHIEF MY QU ESTION ABOUT HOWIS IT, AGAI N, AS JUSTICE CAN TERO 'S SCENARIO IS , YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THAT FIRM AND YOU ARE GOING TO THEFIRM. IN MY SCENARIO ACTION , YOUARE TRYING T O FIND OUT -- IN MY SCEN ARIO, YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT PRO DUCT LIABILITY LAWYERS. HOW IS THAT DI FFERENT THA N THE YELLOW PAGES?

YELLOW PAGES COULD BE LIKE THE HOMEPAGE OF THE WEB SITE, WHICH HA S THE LAWYER'S NAME, PHONE NUMBER AND NOT M UCH EL SE, AND THEN IF YOUWANT MORE INFORMATION , YOUCALL THE LAWYER IN THE YELLOW PAGE AD AND YOU GET MORE INFORMATION .

JUSTICE: HOW ABOUT IF IT SAYS "SEE OUR AD PAGE 400"?

WHERE WOULD IT SAY THAT,YOUR HO NOR ?

JUSTICE: RI GHT BE SIDE THETELEPHONE NU MBER, IT SAYS "SEE OUR AD" AND THEN IT REFERS TO A DIFFERENT PAGE, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT EN OUGH PAGES IN THE PHONE BOOK WITHOUT ADS .

AND THE DIFFERENCE IS?

WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM YOU HAVE GOT A NA ME OF SOMEBODY THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE TELEPHONE BOOK AND ON THE WEB , INTE RNET TECHNOLOGY . "SEE OUR AD".

WEB SITES ARE NOT JUST ADS.

IT CONT AINS THE SAME INFORMATION.IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO AN AD, SO WHY IS IT DIFFER ENT? YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE IT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE NAME. YOU KNOW THE NAME FROM THE YELLOW PAGES. THAT TERM , AS CH IEF JUSTICEREFERS TO , IS A PROD UCT LIABILITY FIRM. THAT'S G REAT . "SEE OUR AD" PAGE 400 ONE TO ME THAT NOT A SUBJECT THAT SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME.

I DON'T THINK A LOT OF ADVERTISING SHOULD BE REGULATED, SO I THINK WE HAVE A BA SIC DIFFERENCE H ERE.

JUSTICE: THE SUPREME COURT DOES SAY THAT IT CAN BE REGULATED. FLORIDA DOES REGULATE IT, SO IF YOU ARE PITCHING A POSITION THAT WE SHOULD NOT REGULATE ADVERTISING, THEN THAT SHOULD BE ON THE TA BLE. WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND OUR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS ON THOSE THINGS, AND YOU YOU ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLE TO DO THAT AND EXPRESS THAT AND WE RESPECT THAT, BUT WE NEE D TO KNOW R ATHER THAN TRYI NG, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO GET RI D OF ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS , WE SHOULD KNOW THAT UP FRONTAND NOT DO IT IN A PIECEMEALWAY SO WE HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY IN WHAT WE ARE DOING.

MY LE GAL POSITION IS THAT WEB SITES ARE NOT ADVERTISING. IT IS CORE FIRST AMENDMENTSPEECH. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AD , LIKE IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAWYER , THE PRODUC TS LIABILITY LAWYER IS GOING TO PI TCH INFORMATION LIKE IS IN THAT MAILER THAT WAS RECEIVED, BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE WEB SITE, YOU CAN GO WHAT IS A PRODUCTS LIAB ILITY LAW SUIT ?

JUSTICE: DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY STATE S ARE REGULATING WEB SITE ADVERTISE SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSW ERTO THAT , BUT I KNOW THAT WE DID A LO T OF RESEARCH.

JUSTICE: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION IN GEORGIA .

I DO NOT KNOW THAT.

JUSTICE: ORAL BAM?

DO NOT KNOW , SIR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I DON'TKNOW IF I AS KED THIS QUESTION OR IF IT WAS ANSWERED BUT SI NCE YOU WERE ON THE T A SK , FOR -- ON THE TASK FORCE, WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR A PROHIBITION LAWYERS MAKING STAT EMENTS REFERENCING THE QUALITY OF LEGAL SERVICES AND ADVERTISING PAST RESULTS?

I DON'T RECALL WHAT THATWAS.I AM NOT TRYING TO BE EVASIVE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT IS SORT OF TO ME , A GAIN , FIRST OF ALL I THINK IT I S , TO SAY THAT YOU CAN CHARACTERIZE YOUR AB ILITY AS AGGRESSIVE BUT NOT YOUR RESULTS OR SOMETHING , IS , I DON'T SEETHE DISTINCTIO N THERE , BUTIT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE ARE THE TWO BIGGEST THINGS THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN, ARE THESE TWO AREAS , AND FOR SOME REASON , THOSE ARE EXEMPTED, IF IT IS A WEB SITE. IT IS SO RT OF LIKE RIGHT NOW IT IS , CAN'T QU ITE F I GURE OUT WHICH WAY TO GO SO WE WILL TREAT THEM INCONSISTENTLY.

I KNOW THE ANSWER NOW. THE ANSW ER WAS THAT YOU HAD THAT MA ILING RULE THAT HAD , IT WAS INFORMATION AT THE REQUEST, AND THOSE MAI LERS COULD INCLUDE RESULTS , SOTHEY WERE MAKING IT CONSISTENT. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE THAT CAME FROM. BUT. MR. WAGNER HAS THE FINLT IN MINUTES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: - - THE FINALITY IN MINUTES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE INTO HIS TEN MINUTES.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THERE IS REA LLY NOT A SLIPPERY SLOPE HERE. WHAT WE ARE DE ALING WITH HERE IS STEPS INTRUDING INTO FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH.I WILL BE BA CK AND THE BAR COUNSEL C ITED THE COMMENTS THREE TYPES HERE TODAY AND WE WILL BE CI TING IT FOR DOZENS OF YE ARS TO COME IF WE DON'T , I WOULD SAY , LEAVETHE CURRENT RULE. THANK YOU.

I AM BILL WAGNER ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS AND WHAT IS LEFT OF MY TEN MINUTES , I DON'T THINK I CAN CO VER MY RESPONSE, BUT FROM THE QUESTIONS I INTERPRET THEFACT THAT SOME OF THE JU DGES ANYWAY HAVE READ THE RESPONSE THAT I MADE BECAUSESOME OF THE QUESTIONS --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WOULD YOU CAPSULIZE YOUR POSITI ON.

I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. THE FIRST THING , I HAVE NO QUARREL WITH MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE BAR. THEY IMPROVE WHAT IS A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD VERY CAREFULLY CONS IDER THE PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO THEWEB , BECAUSE I THINK AS RECOGNIZED, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNSOLVED QUESTIONS THERE. SECOND POSITION I TA KE IS THAT IT IS T IME , A FTER THIS LONG PERIO D OF TIME , FOR THECOURT TO REQU IRE THE BAR TO DO SOMETHING. TO REQUIRE I T TO COMPLETELY STUDY THIS ENTIRE ISSUE OF ADVERTISING AND MARKET ING , AND SAY AN ANSWER IN W RITING SOME GOALS AND PRESENT THEM TO YOU TO AP PROVE THOSE GOALS.IS WHAT THIS REGULATION WE ARE DOING REALLY ASSISTINGTHE PUBLIC?IF YOU COME WITH A PIECE OF THING , HOW DOES THAT ASSIST THE PUBLIC? TWO , IS IT REALLY GOING TO WORK. THREE , IS THE ADVERTISING OR THE MARKETING OR WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING , WH ATEVER YOU CALL THIS , C A USING ADVERSE REACTION FROM THE PUBLIC GENERALLY , TO OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. AND IF YOU SET FORTH THOSE R ULES OR PERHAPS SOME OTHER GUIDELINES THAT YOU COULDCOME UP WITH THAT THE BARWOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH THOSE GUIDELINES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THEY ALREADY ST UDIED , BACK IN 2000 WHEN WE HAD THE 2000 RULES , THEY STUDIED AND FOUND OUT WHAT WE KNOW , WHICH IS THAT ADVERTISING HAS , HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION ON THE P UBLIC .

ABSOLUTELY BUT THEY DIDN'T START OVER , AND MY M EMO PO INT S OUT THE THINGS THAT, THERE ARE RULE S THAT WE ARE LI VING OUT , DI RECT MAIL SOLICITATI ON THAT ARE AS AN CIENT AS OUR FIRST REGULATIONS , AND THEY DO NOT MAKE SENSE WHEN YOU LO OK AT THE OTHER WAYS OF SOLICITING BUSINESS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THE MARK ET GO B ROKE ASSURE S?

I THINK THERE HAS TO BE CONSISTENCY.IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY WE CAN SEND THOSE TO THE PUBLIC , IF YOU CAN SEND THOSE T O MY 9,000 FORMER C LIENTS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THEIR RELATIVES AND THEIR FRIENDS AND FEL LO W WO RKMEN , THE N YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SEND THE M TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. THERE OUGHT TO BE CONSISTENT I IN THAT -- CONSIS TENCY IN THAT, AND IF THAT T YP E OF ADVERTISING IS BAD , PERHAPSYOU CAN CURE IT BY SAYING 40 PERCENT OF THE ADVERTISEMENT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT ADVANCES THE RESPECT OF THE C IVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM , RESPECT FOR THE COURTSYSTEM. YOU COULD MAKE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT AS THE EXPENSETHAT A LAWYER HAS TO PAY FOR ENGAGING IN ADVERTISING AT ALL. THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THIS SUPREME COURT SAYS, THAT THE INTENTION IS TO GIVE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN U SE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU SAY YOU CAN GIVE THEM INFORMATION YOU CAN USE, BUT YOU CAN' T TELL THEM WHAT THE QUALITY OF SERVICE IS. SO YOU GET AR OUND THAT BY SAYING, WELL, YOU CAN DO THAT ON A WEB PAGE OR YOU CAN DO IT , THE MAN ON TELEVISION CAN'T DO IT BUTHE CAN TAKE , BUT CALL ME AND I WILL G I VE YOU INFORMATION , AND THEN THEY SEND THAT OUTTO THEM , OR GIVES THE WEB SITE. BELIEVE ME I KNOW. MARKETING IS NOT JUST ADS , AND I DISAGREE HERE. WE HAPPEN TO HAVE A SECTION , ONE OF THE BACK PAGES OF OUR WEB SITE WHICH DESCRIBES MARITIME ACCIDENT. WHAT HA PPENS WHEN TWO BOATSRUN INTO EACH OTHER. NOW , IF YOU PUT IT IN GOOGLE AND LOOK FOR BOATS COLLIDING, IT DOES N'T GO TO OUR FRONT WEB PAGE. IT GOES TO THAT PAGE PROVIDING INFORMATION. I AM NOT CERTAIN IF THAT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR THE PUBLIC,TO HAVE LAWYERS PRO VIDE INFORMATION OF AVAILABILITYTO THEM , BUT I DON'T THINK THE BAR AND RESPECTFULLY I DON'T THINK THE COURT CAN CONTINUE TO GO ON AN OUTLINE , A SERIES OF RULES DEVELOPED 15 YE ARS AGO , WHEN THE BIGPROBLEM WAS YELL OW PAGES. THE BAR JUST CA ME OUT WITH SOME INFORMATION. IT SAYS THAT TO DAY , PEOPLE RECALL YELLOW PAGES 90 PERCENT OF THE TIME. PEOPLE RECALL ABOUT LAWYERS F ROM DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATION, 3 PERCENT OF THE TIME. PEOPLE RECALL IT FROM TELEVISION, 91 PERCENT OF THE TIME. BUT THE MA GIC WOR D THERE WAS RECALL. RECALL IS MARKETING. MARKETING, YOU DON'T LOOK AT THE TELEVISION THING AND SAY , GEE , I THINK I WILL GO HAVE AN ACCIDE NT AND H IRE A LAWYER. WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU SEE THAT AD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND TODAY YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT, AND YOU THINK WHERE DID I SEE THAT N AME, AND I WILL GO TO THAT COMPANY.NOW , I AM NOT SAYI NG THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT , BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE AND REALIZE THAT THE WOR LD OF ADVERTISING AND MARKETING HAS CHANGE D IN THE LAST 15 YEARS AND RESPECTFULLY, WE ASK WHY DIDN'T THE BAR DO THIS, WHY DIDN'T THE BAR DO THIS , WHY DIDN'T OUR COMMITTEE DO THIS? THE WORL D OF THE LAWYERS WH O SIT DO WN AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS HAS AL WAYS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY, AND I SUSPECTIF YOU WAIT OR THE BAR COMESUP WITH A COMP LETE REVIEW OF THIS AND STUD Y IT AND GET EXPERT ADVICE INSTEAD OF THE ADVICE OF AN OTHER LAWYER WHO IS INVOLVED IN ON E WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU ARE GOING TO BE WAITING ANOTHER TENYEARS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST THEN?

MY SECOND POINT WAS GO A HEAD AND AP PROVE THESE THINGS. YOU MAY WANT TO WITH HOLD ON --

CHIEF JUSTICE: I TH OUGHT IT WAS IRONIC WHEN I SA W THE TASK FORCE THIS TIME DOES NOT FAVOR THE PR E, WHAT IS YOUR VI EW ON THE PRESCREENING OF TELEVISION AND R ADIO ADVERTISEMENT , BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THE TASK FORCE DID NOT AGREEWITH THAT , WHEREAS SIX YEARSAGO , THEY THOUGHT ADVERTISING TELEVISION AND R ADIO ADVERTISING SHOULD BE BANNED COMPLETELY.

I WAS THE RE SIX YEARS AGO, AND THE INSTRUCTION FROM THE BAR LEADERSHIP AND THE IMPLIED INSTRUCTIONS FROMTHE THEN-COURT WAS , DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE YOU CAN DO TO REGULATE ADVERTISING. BUT THEY WERE THINKING, THEN , A BOUT ADVERTISING THAT WAS THOUGHT THEN. MY GOD LOOK A T THOSE YELLOW PAGES. THEY ARE GOING TO KILL US. WE ARE BACK ING OUT OF THE YELLOW PAGES . THERE ARE SO MANY , 1 25 I N TAMPA.IT IS NOT COMPETITIVE AND THEY KEEP CHARGING FOR IT. ADVERTISING HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AND YET WE ARE S TILL TINKERING WITH THE RULES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF IT IS GOING TO TAKE TEN YEARS TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGESTED , WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST IF YOU WERE UP HERE , WHAT WOULD YOUSUGGEST?

I WOULD SUGG EST IT WOULD MOVE A LOT FASTER, IF THE COURT WOULD SAY TO THE BAR A S YOU HAVE DONE IN A COUPLE OF RECENT DECISIONS, YOU SAID I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU SIX MONTHS TO COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WILL OUTLINEAWAY IN WHICH YOU ARE THERE A FTER GOING TO DECIDE TO PURSUE OR NOT PU RSUE MARKET ING REGULATION, AND I WAS K IND OF SURPRISED, BUT I DON'TFIND IT IN THE MATERIALS , BUT THE FLORIDA BAR CITIZENS FORUM , WHICH SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SORT O F JOKE AT AND SAY THAT IS THEM. WE DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION. THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS YOU SHOULD READ.THEY SAY IN REGULATING LAWYER ADVERTISING, THE PRIMARY CONCERNS OF THE FLORIDA BAR SHOULD BE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE LE GAL PROFESSION. S ECOND RECOMMENDATION , THEFLORIDA BAR SHOULD SIMPLIFY THE STANDARDS REGARDINGDESIGN OF AN ADVERTISEMENT AND PRIORITIZE REGULATING THE PROFESSION OF THE M ESSAGE ANSW ERING TWOQUESTIONS. IS THE ACTION BY THE LAWYER F ALSE , MISLEADING OR DAMAGING TO THE PUBLIC, AND SECOND, DOES IT DENIGRATE THE PROFESSION OR THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE? IF YOU TE STED E AC H ONE , THEYHAVE A RULE IN H ERE WHICHSAYS IF I SENT A LE TTER OUTAND I INCLUDE A CO PY OF MY CONTRACT, I HAVE TO STAMP ON IT " DON'T SI GN IT" ! THE LETTER HAS TO SAY AT THE TOP IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A LAWYER, IGNORE THIS LETTER.I DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT I F I SENT IT TO ONE OF M Y 9 ,000 OR 10,000 FORMER CLIENTS. I DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT ONTHE INTERNET. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD MY CONTRACT ON THE INTERNET. THERE IS TO TAL INCONSISTENCY BECAUSE I RESPECTFULLY S UGGEST THE BAR HAS NOT STOPPED AND SAYS OKAY, THEWORLD HAS CHANGED . LET'S START OVER AND SEE , A, WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. WE WANT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM MISLEADING LIES. THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. H OW IS THE BEST WA Y TO DO IT. A LL OF THESE ADVANCED STUDIES THAT CO ST A LOT OF MONEY TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THESE ADS AND SEND THEM IN AND GET THEM APPROVED, OR DO WE WANT TO FINE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIED AND HAVE MISLED AND NAIL THEM. I WOULD ADOPT A RULE THAT WAY. THIS COURT MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY.THEY MAY FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW TO PREVENT ME FROM SENDING ACONTRACT TO A CLIENT IN ALETTER. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT LEVEL OF REGULATION IN THAT FIELD IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING IN THE WEB SITE AND NOW TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAPPENS ON TELEVISION.I DO HAVE TWO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT I WOULD BRIEFLY COMMENT.I DO THINK THAT , UNDER THE RULES AND ANNOUNCEMENT S OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT , AND B Y THE WAY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RECENT LY APPROVED NOT TA KING CERTIORARI ON THE OPINION ON THE PIT BULL THING, AND ONE OF THE PINK THINGS ON THE PIT BULL THING IS YOU -- ON THE PIT BULL THING IS YOU SAY THAT F E LLOW VIOLATED THE RULE. THERE IS NO LO GIC IN THAT , FOLKS.IT MAY BE WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT THERE IS NO ACCOMPLISH IN SUPPORTING PUTTING PIT BULL IN THEGROUND, BEC AUSE PIT BULL SAID WAS, WHAT IS THE RULE , WAIT A M I NUTE . YOU ARE MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE WEB PAGE. ANY WAY. WE WON'T GET INTO THAT. I APOLOG IZE. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT AT LEAST CONSIDER. I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO THIS BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER ASKING THE BAR TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS EVENING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THIS COURT WOULD APPROVE SOME MORE ST RICT REGULATION THAN WHAT I CALL SPOT ADVERTISING. SPOT ADVERTISING IS NOT ADVERTISING.IT DOESN'T PRO VIDE HA RDLY ANY INFORMATION E X CEPT NAME RECOGNITION. BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SPOT TELEVISION ADS, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED INFORMATION THAT IS PROV IDED , IT IS M UCH MORE LIKELY PROVIDING INFORMATION THAT IN FACT MISLEADS OR IS MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE PUBLIC , AND AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE STUD Y, 80 PERCENT OFPEOPLE WHO HAVE NEGATIVE OPINION OF LAW YERS AND NEGATIVE OPI NIONS OF THE JURY SYSTEM GET IT FROM SPOT ADVERTISING. I THINK THE NEW U.S. SUPREME COURT MI GHT REGULATE THAT. THEY MIGHT A LSO ALLOW YOU TO CONDITION THE RI GHT TO ADVERTISE IN THAT MANNER OR OTHER MAN NERS WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU INCLUDESOMETHING THAT BOOS TS AND BOASTS ABOUT OUR SYST EM. THANK YOU VERY MU CH.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH , MR . WAGNER. YOUR COMMENTS WERE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED AND YOU HAVE , THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE ADVERTISING IS SUE , HAVE REMAINED SOMEBODY THAT IS ASSISTING THE COURT IN A VERY POSITIVE WAY. I APPRECIATE IT .

IF I MAY RESP OND TO TWO OF JUSTICE WELLS'S QUESTIONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S LOOK AT PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE WE ARE VERY WELL OVER TIME , BUT DO YOU WANT , I DON'T -- YOU HAVE THE STATISTICS?

TWO QUESTIONS. YOU AND JUSTICE QU INCE SHARED QUESTION THAT I WOULDLIKE TO RESPOND. I WOULD LIKE TO A SK THE COURT TO LET MR . RICHARDS ADDRESS ONE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.TWO DO ZE N FINDINGS OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN ANY GIVENYEAR ON MANY C A SES WHICH HANDLES THE DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM AND ADVERTISING WORKSHOP, TO GO OVER THE RULES AND MAKE SURE EVERY LAWYER IS AWARE OF THERULES. ANOTHER QUESTION YOU HAD JUSTICE WELL S, A MAJORITY OF STATES ALTH OUGH THEIR RULESDO NOT SPECIFICALLY AD DRESS THE INTERNET, APPLY THE ADVERTISING RULES TO THE INTERNET AS THEY WOULD IN THE SAME WAY TO ANY OTHER MEDIUM. JUSTICE QUINCE AND JUSTICE PARIENTE, I THINK HADQUESTIONS ABOUT WHY WE AREDEALING WITH THE WEB SI TES IN THE WAY THAT WE HAVE. WE ARE AS KING TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO BEFORE THE BAR ASKS YOU TO E ITHER MAKE THE RULES MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR WEB SITES OR LESS RESTRICTIVE. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE RULESCHANGED, WE HAD TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE EXCEPTIONS WITHIN THE WEB SITE RULE ITSELF , BUT ALL THAT WE ARE ASKING IN THIS PETITION IS FOR YOU TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO EXACTLY AS IT IS TO DA Y UNTILTHE BAR CAN COME TO YOU --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHICH A LLOWS WEB SI TES TO HAVE RESULTS OBTAINED .

CORRECT , AND STATEMENTS AS TO QUALITY OF L EGAL SERVICES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS IT TRUE THAT YOU CAN GIVE ADJECTIVES THAT DESCRIBE YOU. YOU CAN'T GIVE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES BUT YOU CAN DESCRIBE YOU.

IN GE NERAL ADVERTISING? YES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I ME AN, TO ME THAT IS , AGAIN, A DISTINCTION WITH THAT DIFFERENCE, BUT YOU DI DN'T DRAFT THEM ORIGINALLY.

NO, I DID NOT . BARRY RICHARDS JUST WANTS TO R AISE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE REGARDING WEB SITES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: MR . RICHARDS. YES.THANK YOU.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THE ONLY ISSUE I WANTED TO COMMENT ON IS I THINK WE NEED TO K EEP IN MIND THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOLICITED AND UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING , IN THAT THEREIS A CONSIDER ABLY H IGHER IMPEDIMENT TO THE STAT E'S REGULATION O F SO LICIT ED AS OPPOSED TO UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING.

JUSTICE: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CONCERNS ME CONCERNING WHAT MIGHT BE REGULATE ODD AWEB SITE . IF THAT IS SOLICITED, BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS AFFIRMATIVELY REQUESTING THAT INFORMATION, HOW CAN WE SAY THAT IS ADVERTISE ANGREGULATE IT AS ADVERTISING?

WELL , IT IS EASY TO ANSWER THE QUES TION AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE IN OUR BUSINESS, I F YOU LOOK AT THE EXTREME E ND OF THE SPECTRUM . CLEARLY A POP-UP AD IS SOLICITED AND THEREFORE --

JUSTICE: POP-U P AD TO MEIS NOT A WEB SITE. THAT IS A POP-UP AD ADVERTISING ON SOMEBO DY ELSE'S WEB SITE .

RIGH T.

JUSTICE: I AM TALKING A BOUT SOMEBODY GOING TO BARRYRICHARD.COM.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALK ING. YOU CAN DESCRIBE THAT I N MY NAME. THE CATEGORY BET WEEN THE TWO EXT REMES , THE BEST EXAMPLE BEING THIS , ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE A POP-UP AD THAT F ULLY COMPLIES WITH THE RULES THAT LINKS TO A WEB SITE THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE, SO THE QUESTION THEN BEC OMES ONCE YOU HAVE THE POP-UP AD WITH THE LINK, DO YOU THEN OR SHOULD YOU THEN SUBJECT ENTIRE WEB SITE TO THE ADVERTISING RULES ?

JUSTICE: BUT THEN PROHIBITING ANY KIND OF STATEMENTS ON A WEB SITE IS LIKE SAYING , WELL , YOU CAN'T HAVE A FLOATATION DEVICE BECAUSE SOME FLOATATION DEVICES DON'T WO RK. IT SE EMS LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS REGULATE THOSE P OP-UP ADS NOT REGULATE THEWEB SITE.

WELL , YES. WHAT I AM NOT ARGUING , I AM NOT ADVOCATING A POSITION.I AM JUST SUGGESTING THAT THE TASK FORCE , THE ISSUES ARE BEFORE THEM. ONE RESPONSE TO YOU MIGHT BE , IF I MAKE THE CHOICE OF A POP -UP AD, THEN I HAVE VOLUNTARILY SUBJECTED MY ENTIRE WEB SITE TO ALL OF THE ADVERTISING REGULATIONS BECAUSE I HAVE EFFECTIVELY MADE IT A PART OF THE POP-UP AD, SO IT IS MY CHOICE. IF I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT IN A POP-UP A D , I DON'T HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTI NG IS THE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE IS STRUGGLING WITH THESE ISSUES IN TRY ING TO STRIKE A BALANCE THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AS WELL AS WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

THAT'S CORRECT , YOURHONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHICH IS A HARD TASK TO --

IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE I AM THE ONE WHO HAS TO BE DEFENDANT ING -- DEL VEDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHATEVER THEIR PRODUCT IS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU .