US federal appeals court holds Louisiana State Bar Association is restricted to sharing ‘germane’ social media posts News
193584 / Pixabay
US federal appeals court holds Louisiana State Bar Association is restricted to sharing ‘germane’ social media posts

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on Monday that the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment when it tweeted several posts that were not “germane” to the legal profession. Since membership in the state bar is required for US lawyers to practice within the state, the court held that the bar’s communications must be related to the legal profession.

Circuit Judge Jerry Smith authored the unanimous three-judge panel opinion. Smith noted that the First Amendment protects the individual right of free association. Smith also noted that every lawyer must join their state bar association to practice law in their state. Citing to Fifth Circuit and US Supreme Court caselaw, Smith observed that “compulsory state bar membership is unconstitutional if a bar’s speech is not germane to regulating lawyers or improving the quality of legal services in the state.” Additionally, Smith defined that a state bar’s speech is germane if its purpose is “necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State.”

Smith then concluded that several tweets by the LSBA violated the First Amendment by not being germane. In one such example, Smith found a tweet touting the benefits of an active lifestyle was not germane because it had no “inherent connection to the practice of law.” Another tweet, encouraging generic pro bono opportunities rather than legal charitable opportunities, was not germane either. Smith also found that a tweet apprising lawyers of the difficulty of student loans and possible student loan reform was not germane. Lastly, Smith ruled that a tweet sharing an article about the history of gay rights in the US was not germane either.

Smith concluded that LSBA “crossed the line when it prompted purely informational articles absent any tailoring to the legal profession.” The court then remanded the case back to the district court to determine the proper remedy for the attorney who sued LSBA.