Lawyer ads

The State Bar can dress it up all it wants, but this fact remains inescapable: Requiring attorneys to submit their advertising to a review board is a blatant example of prior restraint.

The new policy went into effect Sept. 1 under rules issued by the Nevada Supreme Court designed to prevent false or misleading advertisements by attorneys. No matter how well-intentioned, however, the system reeks of censorship.

State Bar officials insist the policy won't be used to impose arbitrary standards of good taste or meddle in content, as has happened in the past. That's a step forward. But such assurances don't mitigate the potential First Amendment dangers of a screening panel.

Demanding that attorneys vet their advertising through a committee that essentially has the power to sanction them harkens back to the shameful censorship boards of the early and mid-20th century. The very existence of the board itself represents an attempt to intimidate attorneys into sanitizing their efforts to solicit business.

"This is the only situation I know of where you have to get a stamp of approval immediately after advertising," said ACLU attorney Allen Lichenstein.

At least one lawyer is having none of it. Las Vegas attorney Glen Lerner, who has raised the hackles of the Bar in the past with his "heavy hitter" ads, says he won't comply with the new edict demanding that he submit his ads for approval.

"If they tell me I have to, then I guess we will end up in court," Mr. Lerner said.

The solution here is simple: If the goal is truly to weed out false claims and not screen content, the Bar should welcome and investigate complaints about attorney advertising on an individual basis, rather than mandate that every lawyer comply with the whims of a de facto censorship committee.

After all, imagine the outcry -- and rightfully so -- were the members of any other industry or profession required to get approval to continue running their advertisements.