Public Citizen, Inc. et al v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board et al

Filing 79

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Public Citizen, Inc., Morris Bart, Morris Bart L.L.C., William N Gee, III, William N. Gee, III, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Order Motion for Summary Judgment, # 4 Proposed Pleading Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 5 Proposed Pleading Statement of Uncontested Facts, # 6 Proposed Pleading Notice of Hearing, # 7 Proposed Pleading Request for Oral Argument, # 8 Exhibit 1-5, # 9 Exhibit 6-7, # 10 Exhibit 8 pt 1, # 11 Exhibit 8 pt 2, # 12 Exhibit 8 pt 3, # 13 Exhibit 8 pt 4, # 14 Exhibit 8 pt 5, # 15 Exhibit 8 pt 6, # 16 Exhibit 9 pt 1, # 17 Exhibit 9 pt 2, # 18 Exhibit 9 pt 3, # 19 Exhibit 9 pt 4, # 20 Exhibit 10 pt 1, # 21 Exhibit 10 pt 2, # 22 Exhibit 10 pt 3, # 23 Exhibit 10 pt 4, # 24 Exhibit 11 pt 1, # 25 Exhibit 11 pt 2, # 26 Exhibit 11 pt 3, # 27 Exhibit 12-15, # 28 Exhibit 16-20, # 29 Exhibit 21, # 30 Exhibit 22)(Reference: 08-4451)(Garner, James)

EXHIBIT 9

1

L O U I S I A N A STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

I N RE: R E - E V A L U A T I N G LOUISIANA'S LAWYER A D V E R T I S I N G RULES PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing concerning the above captioned matter was held on Wednesday, the 8th day of November, 2006, at the Federal Courthouse in Lafayette, Louisiana commencing at 5:10 p.m.

Before: Lori Achee Certified Court Reporter State of Louisiana

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GAY: We're all set to start? my name is Phelps Gay. Good afternoon,

I'm an attorney from

New Orleans and a member of the State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, and we're here this afternoon to present and discuss and get as much feedback as we can on some proposals to revise our current Rules of Professional Conduct on the subject of lawyer advertising and solicitation. know that many, if not everyone, in this room is a member of the Louisiana Bar and so I won't detain you with too much background, but these Rules of Professional Conduct are promulgated by the Louisiana Supreme Court and, traditionally, the Bar Association assists the Court in the study and formulation of the Rules, and it is common, I believe, and appropriate for the Bar to reach out to everyone across the State, members of the Bar and members of the public to get as much information as we can and feedback as I say before we make any final decisions. So this is part of a process I think I

that is going on across the state.

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's the second of four public hearings. One was conducted in Baton Rouge; we're in Lafayette today. I believe other members of

the committee are going to New Orleans tomorrow and then after that, to Shreveport. So, we want to hear from you on these proposed revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Just a little bit of background information and then we're going to get into what these new proposals are and most importantly, your input and feedback on them, but -- and, I should say, I'm a member of the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. I'm not the Chair of the

committee, and we are joined here today -Sam Gregorio of Shreveport, a very prominent attorney who is also a member of the committee and participating in the subcommittee which did a lot of hard work toward the drafting of the proposals that we have. Quick background. We have had since

1994 Rule 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on lawyer advertising. It has been

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 revised once or twice since then. They were

not part of the comprehensive review and revision of our Rules of Professional Conduct, which was called the Ethics 2000 process, which was conducted between 2000 and 2003, intentionally. We just thought

that this subject deserved a separate consideration so they were not part of that consideration of the Rules and, of course, that process, Ethics 2000, reached it's final conclusion, and we do have those new revised rules. There was, and Sam, jump in here if I'm saying anything incorrectly, but there has been some legislative initiative to visit and revise our Rules of Professional Conduct. I believe there was a Bill in the

State Senate to revise the Rules which, I believe, the Bill also partook heavily from the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. I want to say that State Senator Marionneaux may have been the proponent of that legislation. In any event, as happens with that kind of process, it becomes necessary to move

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this subject to the attention of the Louisiana Supreme Court because it is the Louisiana Supreme Court that constitutionally has the jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law in the State of Louisiana, and so as I appreciate it, while that Bill met with a lot of support in the legislature, ultimately, it was referred to Louisiana Supreme Court. Louisiana Supreme Court has it's own committee to study our current advertising rules which is different from this State Bar Committee that is conducting this public hearing today. And they have also asked our

State Bar Committee to conduct a thorough study and review of the Rules and to conduct these public hearings such as we're conducting today, and the process will be that it'll move from the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, I believe, to the Supreme Court Committee and, ultimately, it will be the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court as to what to do. So that's sort of how we got to be where we are, and I want to stress again that the

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 purpose of this is to explain the Rules, present the Rules. There is, I believe, a CLE component of this that is available to members of the Louisiana Bar who wish to obtain CLE credit. But really, the main purpose is to get feedback so that we -- we're going to meet again in late November and we want to review and digest all of these topics. Sam, is there anything else you need to add to that by way of background? MR. GREGORIO: The Senator and House of Delegates in between. MR. GAY: Absolutely. Thanks for reminding me.

The State Bar has a body as you know called the House of Delegates elected from districts all over the state, and the plan is for this proposal, in whatever form it is in at that time which will be in January of 2007, to be presented to and discussed and debated by the members of the House of Delegates of the Louisiana State Bar Association. So certainly nothing final

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will happen at least until that debate has been carried out. I guess I should introduce a couple people here today. We are joined by the

person who is going to take us through the Rules, Richard Lemmler. Richard is sitting

right here next to me, and he is the Ethics Counsel for the Louisiana State Bar Association and has provided invaluable assistance as we've reached this point; Billy King who's the Practice Assistant Counsel with the Bar is here today; Chuck Plattsmier, you all know, is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel; Frank Nuenor, former Bar President is here as well. All that said, I guess I would like to turn the proceedings over. What's going to

happen is, Richard is going to -- has a Power Point, and I think you already have materials that include the new proposals and their comparison with the current rules, and Richard is going to take us through what the proposals are in the Power Point, and I believe the plan is to stop whenever anyone wants to after we get to a particular Rule,

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whether it's 7.1 or 7.1(a) or 7.2, and receive as much input as we can. Because if

we just go through the whole thing, it's going to take a little while and people may be a little tired if we gobble up all the oxygen in the room for 45 minutes and then ask for comments. it. So we want to talk about

We want to hear your comments on it, Richard, the

pro or con, as we go through. floor is yours. MR. LEMMLER: Okay. Thank you.

A couple little

housekeeping things before I get started into the actual language of the Rules themselves. As you note on the slide, this We do have a court

is a public hearing. reporter present.

We're going to be

transcribing your comments so we'd ask you for purposes of the record, for purposes of the committee, and perhaps the Supreme Court Committee when they get to look at these things, just state your name and whether you're a lawyer or not just so we know who's here whenever you have a comment, and I'll try to remind you if you don't remember.

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We'll go through it that way. And, as You get

Phelps said, there is CLE credit.

an hour of Ethics credit for attending this. We'll give out the forms when it's over with, and you can get your course number and so forth. There is a sign up sheet up here.

Anyone who came in after we got started, at some point before you leave, just make sure to sign in so we have a record that way of your attendance. All right. Proposed Rule Changes: An The

Overview of Proposed Rule Changes.

first thing we have on the list is the Florida State Bar experience. That might,

at first glance, seem like a tour of alcoholic beverage establishments in South Florida, but actually we're referring to the experience that the Florida State Bar might have with respect to these Rules, and that's primarily one of the reasons why we focused on that with this proposal that's based quite heavily on Florida's existing Rules dealing with advertising and solicitation. Florida's had some form of the current Rules for about 11 years now in place. In fact,

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last week the have just revised their rules. So we're going to be looking at that as well, but for the most part, the rules and the framework that we use is Florida's for two reasons; one, because they have a history, they are working in Florida; two, because Florida has an 82-page handbook that they supply to all of their members as a guide to how to interpret the Rules, give you examples providing information, case law, etcetera, etcetera, everything you wanted to know about these Rules including the filing process that Florida has. be getting into that in a minute. primarily where we got started. As Phelps mentioned, there was a subcommittee of the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, the Bar Committee, that started looking at this, I think, in mid2005. We started looking at the Florida We We'll

That's

Rules, and it was a logical place.

didn't want to really reinvent the wheel so it was a good place to start. Quite

coincidentally, the State Legislature in early 2006, the Bill that was passed in

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 State Legislature, also focused on the Florida Rules. So that was another reason

why we stuck with what we have and that they're a pretty good set of Rules. If you

look at the side-by-side comparison that we have available to you, you can see that the existing Rules that we had fit pretty nicely into the proposal. Nothing really was That's

removed from what we currently had. the Florida experience.

That's why we are

here with the Florida Rules. Review of Proposed Substantive Changes in Proposed Procedural Rules. what we did is break this down. two components to these Rules. to understand them in that form. Basically, There are It's easier They are

basically the substance of changes; what you can and can not do, what you should and should not do and a procedural component that deals with the filing requirement and a review requirement. that order. Comparatively, we just did this little list so that you can see, you know, what we have now on the left and what we're We will take those in

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposing on the right. Basically, we're

doubling the amount of Rules that we have as far as the number, but, again, many of these titles, many of these topics, match up quite nicely with what we already have and, again, on a comparative list, you'll see that what we have now has fit into the proposal with almost no deletions. Proposed Rule changes. is generally permissible? Rule 7.1. What

Basically, a

definition of the permissible forms of advertising and, again, as Phelps said, we thought it would be best for the committee and for the Court committee in going through these transcripts, if we just took it one Rule at a time and you stop me when you have a comment. I'm going to be reading and

talking, but make sure you get my attention, and we'll put your comment on the record; good or bad. Permissible forms of advertising. Public media including print media, telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper, and other periodicals, the basic stuff. Outdoor advertising such as

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 billboards and other signs, radio, TV, the more common and generally recognized forms of advertising. Computer access

communications and that's subdivided later on. You'll see it's internet advertising, Recorded messages can

websites and email.

be publically accessed by dialing a telephone number, which I don't know is quite so common anymore, and written communication in accordance with Rule 7.4, and you'll see that in a minute. That's

essentially what we're calling right now targeted written solicitation. right now in our Rule 7.3. MS. BILLEAUD: Susan Billeaud, attorney. necessary? Why is this What we have

Yes, ma'am?

Also, this seems to be pretty Is there any other form that

comprehensive.

I can possibly anticipate that a lawyer might be -MR. LEMMLER: I'm going to have to confer with the members of the committee on that because this is their prop. I'll see if any of the

committee members present can comment to

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that respect. Sam?

MR. GREGORIO: I think it's a question that -MS. BILLEAUD: Why is this necessary to alleviate with them? Is there some media that you

anticipate that's on this list, and, you know, it wasn't necessary before? MR. PLATTSMIER: Chuck Plattsmier. This came directly

from the Florida Rules, and this is part of their package about the types of advertising that the Rules were intended to address. you look at the substance of the Rule itself, it says types of adverting you can engage in, included but not limited to. if it says specifically included, but not limited to so that there's no question that the rules, the intent was to reach certainly these types that are recognized types of advertising. We would recognize it as the So If

type of advertising, permissible forms of advertising. MS. BILLEAUD: Well, I didn't see that it's -- included

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but not limited to, but that doesn't pass it over just all advertising and not go through a list. I'm a little concerned about -MR. PLATTSMIER: Richard, it might be helpful, at least from my perspective. We're trying to bring

in comments and concerns that people may have. So any comment I think shouldn't be

interpreted as an explanation for -MS. BILLEAUD: This is just one of my concerns. MR. LEMMLER: Yeah. valuable. I think Chuck's point is very I certainly am not here to debate

the merits of any of these Rules to you, just simply to try and explain what we have and to get your comments. Whether you like

them or not and, certainly, if you have a question about it, or you think that this just doesn't make sense, please put that on the record, but we may not come back with a, "Well, no, this is great, you know, you've got like", and so forth. MS. BILLEAUD: I'm not really asking for argument. I

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just really wanted to know if there was a basis other than they did it in Florida. You know what I'm saying? MR. LEMMLER: That, I think, was probably the basis for this decision. Simply, we used the

framework that they had and this is how they started. They give a basic definition of

what they consider to be potential permissible forms of advertising. Not

necessarily exclusive for what's available. More instructive, but your comments will make. MR. DURIO: Well, I have a related question. In the

course of business, does anybody identify any form of advertising that's not included? MR. LEMMLER: That's a great question. Can I ask you

to state your name for the record? MR. DURIO: Oh, I'm sorry. Buzz Durio. here in Lafayette. MR. LEMMLER: I don't recall that anyone tried to I'm a lawyer

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 identify any other forms of advertising, and certainly, if you can think of any at this point, we'd love to hear about them and put them on the record. MR. DURIO: Well, I was just thinking and I can't think of any. I was going to ask you, I You

asked you where does the magnet go? know, where does the magnet -MR. LEMMLER:

I suppose that's a form of written communication. MR. DURIO: Well, I'm just kidding. I was just

wondering if in the course of this, that any identification of something that would not be regulated? MR. LEMMLER: We have not heard of any at this point, but again, if anyone has any ideas of something else that they want to get included, or they want on the list, certainly speak up. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I want to make a general comment. I

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 find the Rules extremely complex and all the cross references to sub-chapters and subsub-sub chapters and other regulations, not even contained here is going to be difficult to someone who wants to follow the Rules to follow the Rules. this? How would they get to

I have something that says

permissible forms of advertising and unless there's some form of advertising considered in this. I mean, I keep reading the Rules

that are a permissible part in achieving, but constitutionally permissible in regulating. I am very much for rules, but I

don't think the rules are directed to the heart. They are going after the people who

are doing deceptive, trashy advertising. They degrade our profession and in many cases, bad handling. I don't think the

rules should have a single word that's not necessary and list as a form of advertising of a single version. MR. GREGORIE: I believe the structural definition will articulate with that. Subsequently, one

will say, we recognize it.

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BILLEAUD: Why say that? MR. GREGORIO: Well, I think it's kind of a structural definition for. 7.2. MS. BILLEAUD: I understand that point. I guess I

confer with Richard that perhaps it's a long way around the truth, and maybe we can do advertising in all types of whatever kind you accept, you know, those that broadcast, and it might just be straight forward. was very concerned about that when I saw that. Can I ask another question? MR. LEMMLER: Sure. MS. BILLEAUD: What is the standard of review? Is it I

narrowly tailored to get a controlling government (inaudible) MR. GREGORIO: Florida (inaudible) MS. BILLEAUD: Has anyone read the Florida State Rules? MR. LEMMLER:

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I have. MS. BILLEAUD: I find them very straight forward. MR. LEMMLER: Okay, any other comments on that. MR. BURGESS: Just a general comment. If I understand

you correctly, Florida has recently revised their rules. is that right? MR. LEMMLER: No, sir. MR. BURGESS: I'm sure there's reason for possibly litigation. If you can push that along with the proposed handbook. It seems like we can These are not revised rules;

sit down and say this is a proposed rule. These are the guidelines. There could be

some benefit if we had guidelines, and if you don't look at it, and you knew ahead of time, you save some time. MR. PLATTSMIER: Chuck Plattsmier. Excellent point. As I Let

me tell you what my concern is.

recall, the Louisiana Legislature wrote the

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 handbook by agreement by resolution involved the Louisiana Supreme Court set a sunset provision or some sort of action to be taken. The mechanism that would give us in

compliance with that, we felt would also include, appropriately so, bringing in the Louisiana State Bar and House of Delegates. This meeting is, again, their agenda would be posted by mid-December. So you see the

time table is backing us up based upon sort of a sunset provision that is sort of imposed by the legislative resolution. That's the first observation. Second, your

point about the handbook is very valid. Many states utilize comments when they pass a law. Louisiana Supreme Court has not

generally embraced the notion that would impose these written comments. So for that

reason, the handbook is a very important part of this. It may not make a lot of

sense to you writing a handbook until we've got everybody's comments on the substantive rule. We want to make sure you have a Third, the

handbook that matches that.

revisions, as I understand it, came out

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 perhaps last week and probably at or around the time we had our very first hearing, and some of the changes are substantive. For

example, I think that if you look at the recent part of the changes that they have chosen the board members to delete the disclaimer that every advertisement in every written form, which was the disclaimer that says selection of an attorney is an extraordinarily important decision and should not be made on the basis of advertising alone. proposal. That's part of the

It's fashioned after Florida who Those were sorts of

has that provision.

things that was current. MR. LEMMLER: Follow up on something that Chuck said with respect to the handbook. I think from

a practical standpoint, the handbook in Florida is 82 pages long. The comment Trying

before was the complexity of rules.

to cross reference this set of rules with an 82 page handbook is a monumental task. know, I've done it twice already. I

So from a

practical standpoint trying to come up with

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a complete handbook as well as a complete set of proposed rules that you don't yet know whether they are actually going to be adopted in this form, it seems like putting the cart before the horse at that point. So

there's every intention, I believe, at some point for the committee to get into the meeting of the handbook and a working handbook. I've already prepared a clean

copy and a redline based on the proposal that we have now that we actually had an opportunity to look at, but we just don't have it for you now. That's in the works.

MR. HERNANDEZ: You know, I haven't even really sat down and discussed this, but I can tell you two things that are going to interest me. One

is the public comments; hopefully, they will be used in the House, because, you know, I can't go -- you know, all I know having talking to members whom I represented throughout the state not just in Lafayette, also I have an efficiency of lawyers in Lafayette who look upon the House and the 15th JDC and those who represent this area

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and say, "John, what are the proposed changes?" The biggest concern for me is if

we're going to go through each rule in the House, words like permissible, we could debate this. I don't have the knowledge

that this committee who's put all the work and has done splendor job of performing what is a miraculous document. You have 144

members of the House who dedicate themselves to where we are, where we're going to be and the exact purpose of where we're going. The

big question I have is, as often comes up, some of these rules are very easy, very explainable, they're not controversial. Some will be. Like this is a very

controversial piece of legislation that the House is going to discuss. that house for six years. I have been in The simple

question is, is this -- do we adopt all the rules, or we adopt none of the rules, or we adopt several of the rules that we like, you know, that's the issue because some of these rules that are very controversial, I can assure you, you're going to have a lot of debate. Whether or not that can all be

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussed, you know, in one afternoon at the House, I don't know, but I think from an aspect of the questions that I will be asked, it's simply is all or nothing or are some of these rules negotiable because I know the members of the committee will be there as well as those pushing this in both the Congress and the citizens who may have a different plight as far as what should be implemented regarding these rules. That's

the procedural question I ask; is it all or nothing or is it negotiable? MR. LEMMLER: Well, I think to answer your question, there is rules of debate that was actually adopted by the House, I think it was last week, in the anticipation of this. It was

pretty much echoed what was used for the Ethics 2000 revision, and then I think -- I believe it's an all or nothing so the House can vote it up or vote it down as a package as opposed to debating each individual item. I could be mistaken, but I think that's what the rules say. MR. KING:

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bill King. It is an all or nothing

thing, but there is a chance as I understand it, to amend certain provisions of it with a resolution 15 or 30 days ahead of time. So

if you don't agree with a certain aspect of these rules as they come out of the Louisiana State Bar Association and the Supreme Court Committee, you have a chance to amend it, I think, at the House. That's

how it's agreed to work it through, Ethics 2000, correct? MR. PLATTSMIER: Yes. MR. BROUSSARD: Once it gets through the House, there will be the recommendation to the Supreme Court and of the committee? MR. LEMMLER: That's my understanding. That the Court

often would do whatever the Court wants to do, but this is the recommendation from the Bar with respect to the House. MR. GAY: I wanted to respond to John's first question. I believe I heard yesterday from

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you all that the intent is to transcribe these public hearings and to put them in full, the transcripts, on the Louisiana State Bar Association website. MR. LEMMLER: That's correct. The transcripts --

we're intending to put the full transcripts from each one of the hearings on the website. Right now, just to make a general

announcement, if you don't know, all of these rules are on the Louisiana State Bar Association website right now. There is a

public comment form online where anyone can log in. You do not have to be a lawyer.

You do not have to be a member of this Bar to log in and register your comments. taking them. everyday. We're getting comments We're

We're intending to also publish So you

those comments on the same website.

should be able to read online what everyone else is saying. So we're trying to make

this as open and transparent of a process as we can given the time limitations that Chuck already referred to. there. So that information is Any

If it's not yet, it will be.

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other comments with respect to 7.1? a lot of rules to go through. We have

These are all

great comments, but I'm going to push ahead if no one has anything else to say with respect to this. yes, sir? MR. GOFORTH: Before you go on, I did not see the -MR. LEMMLER: I'm sorry, can I ask you -MR. GOFORTH: Bill Goforth, I'm from Lafayette. MR. LEMMLER: Thank you. MR. GORFORTH: I read these rules. It seems to me that I don't 7.2. 7.2 is a huge --

there's a big hole in that area.

know if you've covered that, but we have national advertising by national law firms soliciting our citizens here in Louisiana. What is to prevent the same type of -- let's say siphoning off of a client based here in Louisiana to people advertising on a national basis who are outside the state that is soliciting our citizens? And, what

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effect is that going to have if any? MR. LEMMLER: Anyone from the committee want to comment on that? MR. GREGORIO: It's my understanding of the committee is that each (inaudible) from advertising (inaudible) is not intended to broadcast. It is intended to be here. MR. GOFORTH: But a lawyer outside this state is not subject to state laws. MR. GREGORIO: Where? MR. GOFORTH: In Texas. I mean, what do we have here

to prevent this kind of thing or is this something not considered? MR. GREGORIO: You're talking about a Texas lawyer trying to advertise in Texas? MR. GORFORTH: I'm talking about a New Jersey lawyer advertising for -- in Louisiana on television and soliciting our citizens --

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. [phone]