Committee hears constitutional objections to bill that would require attorneys to disclose net client recoveries

House Bill 677 drew a contested hearing on May 28 when sponsors asked the committee to clarify advertising requirements for lawyers and opponents raised separation‑of‑powers and First Amendment concerns.

Representative Carver told the committee the bill would amend the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act to clarify when an attorney ad is false, deceptive or misleading and to permit the attorney general (and district attorneys under current statute) to investigate and pursue enforcement. The proposal would require that an advertisement stating an award or judgment also state the amount the client actually received — either as the net amount after litigation expenses or as the gross amount accompanied by a clear disclosure of attorney fees and other deductions.

Professor Michelle Geddy, a former deputy solicitor general and long‑time legal educator who helped draft similar language previously, testified that the measure is constitutionally permissible. She argued that lawyer advertising is commercial speech and that disclosure requirements are less burdensome than bans. She cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Bates) and later advertising cases that permit limited regulation and required disclaimers to prevent consumer deception.

Opponents urged caution and said the Louisiana Supreme Court — not the legislature — has “exclusive and plenary power” to regulate the practice of law. Mary Smith, an appellate lawyer who clerked at the Louisiana Supreme Court, argued the bill would impermissibly encroach on the court’s constitutional authority to regulate attorney conduct and could create inconsistent parallel enforcement by the executive branch. She warned that the measure, if enacted, would be subject to a constitutional challenge and could cost the state substantial litigation expenses.

Committee members discussed separation‑of‑powers concerns and enforcement procedures; Representative Carver said the intent is not to displace the court’s disciplinary authority but to provide a civil enforcement pathway under consumer‑protection law for misleading entrepreneurial advertising. The sponsor said the language is modeled on approaches other states use and noted that courts in other jurisdictions have upheld similar civil‑enforcement frameworks.

The hearing closed without final action; opponents urged further review and consultation with the Louisiana Supreme Court to avoid constitutional conflict.