Update on proposed New York anti-law-blog bill

Today’s New York Law Journal has an article on the proposed new regulations that would destroy the use of the Internet by lawyers, stating that most of the bar groups commenting on them consider them too broad or worse. It makes reference to a magnum opus on the topic by real estate attorney Joshua Stein, whose down to earth site does not necessarily scream, “Latham & Watkins partner” — but that’s what he is.

The bad news? The Law Journal also quotes First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams, who calls the new rules unconstitutional and threatens that he’ll litigate over them if he has to. Let’s hope to Heaven it doesn’t come to that.

UPDATE: Joshua Stein pointed me to this article on the topic in the New York Sun.


Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.


  1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » Disclaimer for the slow-witted, the vicious and the greedy - January 2, 2007

    […] I have added a disclaimer to the right-side navigation bar as the winds of oppression howl about me. It’s preposterous to think that this is really necessary, but here we are. […]

  2. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » New York ethics rules do not destroy blogs as we know them - January 17, 2007

    […] Probably not, anyway.  We were all upset and flustered over the proposed new rules.  As actually enacted, they were considerably more mild and don’t seem to affect most law bloggers in what we do, mostly.  Probably.  The f/k/a . . . blog at Harvard law takes a closer, more detailed look. […]