Hi, Carolyn.  Did you read Evan’s piece and mine completely?  We both speak about the important role of lawyers in educating the public.  I stress that the important responsibility of lawyers to educate the public and help improve the justice system would be hampered if “advertising” is stretched to include information and educational materials not aimed directly at obtaining clients.   

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with bringing public policy into “lawerly thinking” when drafting, interpreting and applying regulations. (Remember the Brandeis Brief?)  Constutional limitations on government often take policy issues into account.  And, every law should be the embodiment of some “policy” or value that is being protected or nurtured.

On the other hand, I would hope that lawyers are capable of defining their rules and regulations in ways that incorporate policy — rather than using poorly-constructed rules and then having to apply exceptions in what seem to be very subjective or arbitrary ways.

Also, until you find a way to articulate more precisely the values you mean to protect when you raise the “impact on solos” issue, I cannot adopt it as a useful yardstick.  [E.g., Just last week, you stressed all the very wealthy solos you know.  Remember?]

I don’t fully agree with Evan’s and your emphasis on strict legal issues here. Certainly, that’s the first argument to be raised, but I’m fairly sure that Ben’s covered that in his dealings with the bar. More importantly, it’s not always legal arguments that carry the day in cutting edge cases – it’s legal arguments along with discussion of the policies like speech issues (even if there’s no real First Amendment legal issue); limiting ability of lawyers to educate the public and yes, the impact on solos. I think the role of us bloggers here is more along the lines of amici, each of us highlighting from our perspective or constituency how the Kentucky rule will impact us. THose kinds of policy arguments carried the day (or at least received attention) in the recent UMich affirmative action case as discussed at this link – http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1056139919083