Philadelphia, PA — A contentious rule proposed for Pennsylvania lawyers has raised concerns over potential infringement on First Amendment rights. Critics argue that if implemented, the rule could have a chilling effect on free speech. The legal dispute in Greenberg v. Lehocky revolves around the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys and how it defines misconduct. Licensed attorney Zach Greenberg, who is known for providing continuing legal education presentations on the First Amendment, has challenged recent changes to the rule.
Following his argument that the rule changes were unconstitutionally vague and posed a risk to lawyers’ free speech rights, a district court ruled in Greenberg’s favor. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals later determined that he lacked standing to challenge the changes. Since the Third Circuit’s ruling in October, Greenberg has sought a review from the U.S. Supreme Court, garnering support from various organizations that have filed amicus briefs.
In a recent brief, the Liberty Justice Center argued against the rule changes, stating that government officials should not be able to evade scrutiny under the First Amendment. According to the center, without a Supreme Court ruling, free speech remains under threat. The revised rule resulting from the federal district court ruling was criticized as being “half-hearted” by Reilly Stephens of the Center. The center noted that Pennsylvania’s definitions of “harassment” and “discrimination” encompass a wide range of protected speech, and merely including a “knowing” or “intent” element does not exempt content and viewpoint-based restrictions from constitutional scrutiny.
Moreover, the center contended that applying a broad rule of professionalism to lawyers could lead to uneven enforcement. It argued that determining what language is offensive is too subjective a task to entrust to government officials. The amicus briefs were not limited to the Liberty Justice Center and also included submissions from the Manhattan Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The issue at hand raises concerns about the potential suppression of free speech rights for attorneys in Pennsylvania and whether the rule changes are constitutional. Supporters of Greenberg’s challenge argue that the changes are too broad and could restrict lawyers’ ability to engage in robust debate and protect their clients effectively. The outcome of Greenberg’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court will play a crucial role in clarifying the boundaries between professionalism and the protection of free speech rights for attorneys in Pennsylvania.