About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


11 Docket Call 1 (1976)

handle is hein.abarchive/dockcalog0011 and id is 1 raw text is: chairman's comer James J. Bierbower Some of the dust has settled, but the question of all out advertising by lawyers remains the most significant issue facing the bar. The midyear meeting of the House of Delegates in Philadelphia produced a healthy debate on this issue. Al- though some limited changes were made in the Code of Professional Responsibility, it was and is clear that the majority of the House was not panicked by the litiga- tion filed by consumer groups, the recommendation of the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Respon- sibility, and the noises emanating from Washington. WIRAfriv tes m Wyhllihere were immediate continued on page 16 SENO EEA RCIE9A EiA A S O ITO 9 Oa19N PI( aba takes limited action on advertising The ABA's House of Delegates has taken limited action to permit more information on attorney fees and services, but in so doing it rejected an ABA committee proposal for drastic changes in the traditional restrictions against advertising by lawyers. Climaxing almost tnree hours of debate on February 17, 1976, the delegates amended the Code of Profes- sional Responsibility to allow lawyers to list additional details on their practices and some information on fees in legal directories and the Yellow Pages The House de- bated the issue during its Philadelphia midyear meeting. The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Pro- fessional Responsibility, chaired by Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., of Philadelphia, had proposed sweeping changes prior to the Philadelphia meeting. The committee retreated somewhat but still its proposals were rejected. At the end of the session, the House cast its weight behind an amended proposal from the Standing Commit continued on page 2 C 1976 American Bar Association FI contents ARIZONA TEST CASE.... CHIEF JUSTICE URGES LAW REVISION ... .6 ABA POLITICAL POT BOILS. .8 WHAT'S UP IN THE SECTION ....... 10 WASHINGTON DIGEST . . .12 virginia stands pat Virginia has rejected any change whatsoever in the anti advertising rules in the Code of Profession- al Responsibility. In an unsigned order on April 22, 1976, the Virginia State Supreme Court said only that ad- vertising would not serve the best interests of the public or the legal profession, and rejected any change. The Virginia State Bar had petitioned the Court to adopt substantially the limited changes adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in February of this year. Under the proposal offered by the governing council of the Virginia State Bar, lawyers would have been permitted to list their fees for initial consultation in telephone and legal directories, whether they would accept credit terms, their legal specialties, and membership in legal or ganizations. The ABA standards are not binding on state or local bar qroups. In Virginia, as in most states, for mal adoption of such changes in the code is determined by the State Supreme Court.