House debate narrows on bill to treat attorney ads under unfair-trade rules

Representative Carver introduced House Bill 6-77 to clarify that attorney advertising be treated the same as other business advertising under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The bill, Carver said, “simply revises the existing Louisiana unfair trade practices act to clarify what constitutes a deceptive or misleading ad by an attorney and provides procedure for the attorney general enforcement under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.” He added that the provision would require advertisements stating gross recovery amounts to “state only the amount gross amount with disclosure of litigation expenses or the net amount after litigation expenses have been deducted.”

Supporters told colleagues the measure is aimed at protecting consumers from misleading ads that could create unrealistic expectations about case outcomes and awards. Carver said the measure mirrors existing practice in other states and federal decisions, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent discussed in committee.

Opponents and questioners pressed on enforcement and overlap with judicial discipline. Representatives asked whether the Attorney General would enforce the law and how members of the public would demonstrate a cognizable “injury” to trigger an unfair-practices investigation. Carver replied that “anyone in the public can make that complaint to the attorney general” and described the AG’s typical investigatory steps and remedies, which can include restitution or injunctions.

Several members raised constitutional concerns about encroaching on the judiciary’s disciplinary authority. Carver repeatedly told lawmakers the bill addresses the entrepreneurial, marketing side of law practice and does not displace the Supreme Court’s authority to discipline lawyers for violations of professional conduct. He cited judicial precedent that lawyers may be subject to consumer-protection laws.

The House record in the transcript shows extended floor debate and at least one procedural vote (a failed request for 5 additional minutes of debate). A final recorded roll-call for final passage of HB 6-77 does not appear in the excerpt provided. The transcript indicates the chamber “spent about an hour on the first bill for today,” and co‑author counts were recorded, but no formal enactment or defeat is recorded in the supplied portion of the minutes.

The floor exchanges underscored three consistent themes: sponsors framed the bill as consumer protection focused on truth in advertising; critics warned of duplicate or conflicting enforcement channels and of potential friction with the judiciary’s disciplinary rules; and members repeatedly sought clarification on how complaints would be handled and what injuries would be cognizable under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Next steps noted in the transcript: the bill remained under consideration on the calendar after the hour of debate recorded in the supplied transcript. The transcript does not show a final vote outcome for HB 6-77 within the provided text.