In Rep. David Simmons’s crusade to restrict what he sees as bad lawyer advertising, the example he mentions over and over is the law firm using the phone number 1-800-PIT- BULL.

It has become almost the apocryphal example of what many see as ads that provoke public hostility toward the profession and the legal system. So apocryphal, that attorney John Morgan, in a June 30 debate with Simmons in Orlando, questioned whether it was real.

He offered to bet Simmons $1,000, with the loser contributing to the winner’s favorite charity, if Simmons could find a lawyer ad using the PIT BULL number.

Hope Morgan’s checkbook was handy. Simmons noted all anyone has to do is dial the number and that the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel had written about the phone number. Although Simmons didn’t mention it, there is also a pending Bar grievance case against the firm, partly over the use of that phone number.

A quick search on the Web also showed that the Miami Herald has also written about Pape & Chandler, P.A., of Ft. Lauderdale. And the firm’s Web site offers to sell T-shirts and hats with their pit bull logo and distinctive phone number.

The ad has an interesting history with the Bar. The firm initially submitted a transcript of its TV ads, but not a videotape. The transcript noted that the ad would have an 800 number and logo, but didn’t said the logo would be a pit bull and that the number would be 1-800-PIT-BULL. The firm was given a preliminary approval of the ad, with the caveat that a final approval would not be given until the videotape was filed with the Bar, which it never was.

That led to review by the local grievance committee after the ad was aired. That committee dismissed the case with a letter of advisement to the firm.

But then the Bar’s Statewide Grievance Committee, which handles violation of the Bar’s ad rules, took up the case after former Bar President Tod Aronovitz, acting as an individual attorney, filed a complaint shortly before he took office in June 1992. Another Bar member also complained. Last September, the committee found probable cause and in February the case was referred to a referee. In May the firm filed affirmative defenses and asked that the charges be dismissed.

According to Tony Boggs, the complaint alleges that the firm’s ad, including the use of the pit bull phone number improperly characterizes the firm’s legal services, can create unjustified expectations about the firm’s services, and could be misleading and manipulative.

In its motion, the firm said the Bar is prohibited from acting by the initial grievance committee’s dismissal and letter, that the ad is protected by the First Amendment, and that the Bar’s actions do not follow rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on lawyer advertising, among other reasons.