Can't help but notice a couple of interesting points. First, the complaint has the name of a CT grievance person as well as two law student interns?! No offense, but I question whether student interns have the judgment or skill to research an ethics complaint. Second, the complaint makes note of legislation passed October 1, 2009. How is that relevant? This complaint was filed well before October 1, 2009? Does the bar intend to rely on legislation that was passed after the fact? Sounds very unfair.
Don't get me wrong - I find "pay for play" contemptible and I'm not a huge fan of the 1-800 services or big advertising companies. I much prefer the types of education based advertising that you've long advocated. Nevertheless, this case scares me because these lawyers participated in a system that was vetted by Total Attorneys' counsel and already found acceptable in other jurisdictions. At best, they ought to have a good faith defense. If the bar hates the service, then ban lawyers from using it prospectively, but don't make an example of these innocent lawyers.