Hunter v. Virginia State Bar, 744 S.E.2d 611

Hunter, a Virginia attorney, writes a non-interactive, trademarked blog on his law firm site discussing cases and issues, largely highlighting favorable outcomes for his clients, with no disclaimers at first.
VSB investigated whether the blog constituted advertising and whether it violated Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.5, and 1.6 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
At the hearing, a former client testified he did not consent to posting about his case; others expressed consent concerns, though many facts had appeared in court.
VSB found: (i) Rule 1.6 violated for disseminating client information without consent; (ii) Rule 7.1 and 7.2 violations for advertising specific results without proper disclaimers; (iii) Rule 7.5 dismissed; first finding led to a public admonition with content-removal and disclaimer requirements.
Circuit court upheld most findings, held the blog posts were commercial speech, and ordered a disclaimer; VSB appealed, Hunter cross-appealed on First Amendment grounds.
This Court addresses whether blog speech is commercial, whether Rule 1.6 is constitutionally applied, and whether the disclaimer complies with Rule 7.2(a)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Hunter's blog posts commercial speech under First Amendment?	Hunter: speech is political, not commercial.	VSB: posts are commercial advertising; intended to promote services.	Blog posts are commercial speech.
Does the VSB's Rule 1.6 application to Hunter violate the First Amendment?	Hunter: sharing public information from cases is protected; cannot be punished for truthful public info.	VSB: can regulate information embarrassing/detrimental to clients to protect confidentiality.	VSB's Rule 1.6 application violated the First Amendment; disclosure cannot be punished when information is public.
Did the circuit court's disclaimer requirement comply with Rule 7.2(a)(3)?	Disclaimers should reflect rule's formatting and content; the court imposed insufficient formatting.	Disclaimer adequate to serve the regulatory interest.	circuit court erred by not fully enforcing formatting; remand for proper compliance with Rule 7.2(a)(3).

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (test for commercial speech regulation)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977) (advertising versus speech protection)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1985) (upholds disclosure requirements in advertising)
In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1982) (disclaimer rationale in legal advertising)
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (U.S. 1975) (commercial speech protection extended to some advertising with political elements)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (advertising context and commercial speech considerations)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (public nature of trials; access to proceedings)
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (balance First Amendment rights with governmental interests)
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1991) (protects attorney speech; limits discipline for truthful public information)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1973) (advertising and commercial speech motive considerations)
Fox v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, 492 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (advertising content and political speech interplay)