I'm not really sure how to react to this, except maybe I should double check to make sure I'm reading this correctly.  The Florida Supreme Court recently recommended that lawyer websites have click through disclaimers, so the information on the website is not readily accessible unless the user clicks through.  According to the court, only with implementation of a disclaimer would the information be provided "upon the request" of the consumer.  I'm not sure how it works for others, but my browser just types in links on its own so I don't have any choice as to what websites I visit . . . [link to a summary]; [pdf of the decision here]:

Questioning whether they would provide sufficient protection for the public, the Supreme Court has rejected the Bar’s proposed lawyer Web site advertising rules, but made several suggestions on how the rules could be improved.

The Bar’s proposals would have required that the home page of a lawyer Web site comply with all the substantive lawyer advertising regulations, which are set forth in Rule 4-7.2. After the home page, the remainder of the lawyer Web site has to comply with all substantive lawyer advertising regulations except for testimonials, references to past case results, and characterizations of the quality of their legal services — items that are prohibited in other types of lawyer ads. The Bar would have required disclaimers if the lawyer included testimonials or references to past results.

The court found the Bar’s proposed amendments were “not sufficient” to make material behind the home page fall under the concept of information “upon request,” but said “sufficient changes” could be made to the advertising rules to make pages behind the home page constitute material “upon request.” Information provided at the request of a prospective client is not subject to the lawyer advertising rules, but cannot be misleading.

To do that, the court suggested the Bar consider a two-step process — including having the public accept a disclaimer — before accessing the inside pages of a lawyer’s Web site.

[emphasis added]  Separately, a concurring justice actually looked favorably on public input which wanted all of the material on the website to be "subject to review."  (Maybe a requirement that the material be filed with the State Bar?) 

Are they surfing a different internet in Florida?  What's going on?  Definitely curious to see what Randazza (and others) think.  This sounds screwy to me.  Terribly impractical.  And of course, a lawsuit (challenging the law) waiting to happen.  (A current lawsuit is pending in LA around similar issues, but the court there pushed back implementation of the rules.)  (Justia page here; Wolfe Law Group page here.)