The decision in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler, along with the original Bar complaint, and P&C’s comprehensive Memorandum of Law , can be found at the Pape & Chandler website. The Honorable Judge William W. Herring presided over the matter as Referee and ruled that neither the 1 (800) PITBULL number, nor P&C’s logo (depicting the head of a pit bull in a spiked collar) are deceptive or otherwise violative of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar; furthermore, the State’s lawyer advertising rules are unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech as applied here by The Florida Bar.
Here is a particularly important quote from John Pape in the firm’s Press Release :
“Our pit bull logo is not a hollow charade or a lame marketing gimmick. The logo represents what we believe our firm stands for: loyalty to our clients and to each other and tenacity, determination and aggressiveness in representing our injured clients.” . . .
“Over the past 3 years, we have spent over $100,000.00 in our own time and money defending ourselves pro se against the Bar. But the most disconcerting aspect of the entire 3 year ordeal with the Bar . . . is that it seems that the Bar is more focused on creating the superficial appearance of dignity and elitism in the legal profession by attempting to regulate what it sees as good taste in lawyer advertising than it is on focusing on what is really important. The superficial appearance of dignity does not create actual dignity or integrity. Our clients are the most important part of the profession, and the Bar should probably focus more on making sure that clients get loyal, diligent and competent representation from intellectually qualified and diligent attorneys.”
Congratulations to John and Marc (and to legal consumers, who are being treated like thinking adults). [see our prior post here]
Correction (Oct. 8, 2004): Although we expect the Florida Bar to appeal the Referee’s Report and Order, such an appeal has apparently not been filed at this point. The notation on the Florida Supreme Court case docket to which we linked earlier appears to be a notice that the review process must be commenced by Nov. 29, 2004, as called for in the bar rules [Rule 3-7.7(c)(1)]. We apologize for the error and any inconvenience it may have caused. Please remember that, while Homer may occasionally nod, the retired ethicalEsq definitely naps a lot. Your Editor promises to do better next time, and hopes the Florida Bar will choose to — dare we say it? yep — let this sleeping dog lie.
Pit Bull Update (Oct. 21, 2004, 6 PM): Marc Chandler reports that Pape & Chandler received notice today from the Florida Bar that it would seek review of the decision in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler. The stubborn and misguided Bar is being as tenacious (nasty?) as a pit bull.
update (Nov. 17, 2005): see fla. high court puts down Pape & Chandler’s Pit Bull
loyalty, tenacity and determination in representing our clients . . .
trusting the dog
to guard the gate…
chrysanthemum
mother dog
testing the depth…
snow-melt river
Kobayashi Issa, translated by Prof. David G. Lanoue
Public service suggestion from haikuEsq: share some non-fat, low-calorie pumpkin haiku 
from 