Look, it’s OK to lie. Or, at least, outside of some fairly specific circumstances, the government can’t punish you for lying. Go check out U.S. v. Alvarez – and the now-unconstitutional “Stolen Valor Act” to see what I mean.
That doesn’t mean it’s not despicable to pass oneself off as a Medal of Honor winner, and the same First Amendment that protects our lies 1 also allows us to call out those practicing such behavior as the pathetic lowlifes that they are.
Which bring us to the tale of Los Angelese attorney Svitlana Sangary, who festooned her law firm website with numerous photos of Ms. Sangary hanging with celebrities. Problem was, it was all phony – Sangary had photoshopped herself into all of the pictures. She now finds herself facing the likely suspension of her law license.
Now, it’s important to note that the potential suspension recommended by the California State Bar Court wasn’t only because Sangary put some phony photos on her website. It’s also because she utterly failed to cooperate, behaved in a manner that’s textbook “How Not to Handle a Bar Complaint,” and generally acted as a poster child for the proposition that admission to the Bar is no guarantee of fitness to practice law.
But I want to focus on the photos. Sangary would have a good First Amendment defense if the bar had come after her for having the photos at issue here on a personal blog, facebook profile, or the walls of her office. Just like everyone else, attorneys have the right to lie. They might do so for any number of reasons: lack of self-esteem issues, to piss people off, or abject failure to understand social norms.
And again, remember: this isn’t to say that it’s not shameless and pathetic for a lawyer (or anyone, really) to behave in this way. It is. It’s just that there can’t be any state-sanctioned penalties for so doing.
However, one reason for lying that isn’t protected by the First Amendment is commercial speech. Not only is commercial speech in general subject to less protection than “core” speech (intermediate vs. strict scrutiny), false commercial speech is entitled to NO First Amendment protection.
So, Sangary’s photos. There’s no question her website is a form of advertising, nor that the page with the doctored photos was designed to fulfill a particular marketing task: instilling Sangary’s potential clients with a feeling of trust, cachet, and exclusivity. Thus the photos are a form of false advertising, and easily form the basis for Sangary to be disciplined.
That, plus the crazy way she handled it. Seriously, the details in the judge’s order are a stark example of why consumers need to do more than be starstruck by a few celebrity photos when it comes time to choose a lawyer.
- Or, more aptly, protects us from the chilling effect of laws allowing the government to determine what is true and what is false. ↩