New state rules prohibiting certain attorney advertisements will face their first legal test Friday, when a federal judge in Syracuse hears oral arguments on whether the restrictions violate the First Amendment.

A personal injury firm from Syracuse is asking that a judge forbid the state to enforce the rules, which took effect in February and were the subject of much debate among lawyers last year.

At the center of the lawsuit are television advertisements used by the Syracuse firm, Alexander & Catalano LLC, which include a spot showing the firm’s lawyers advising aliens on how to collect insurance money for their crashed spaceship.

But the new rules affect a wide range of advertisements.

The lawyer representing the firm, Gregory Beck of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said the rules would require lawyers to alter their ordinary business practices drastically. Under a strict reading of the rules, Mr. Beck said, all lawyer business cards would need to carry a disclaimer reading “Attorney Advertising.” Law firms could interpret another rule requiring that advertising not contain information extraneous to the legal services being offered as forbidding firms from placing pictures of their attorneys on their Web sites, Mr. Beck said.

The rules were intended to protect consumers from confusing or misleading advertisements and to prevent personal injury attorneys from soliciting plaintiffs in the wake of disasters.

Much of the legal wrangling in the current case surrounds whether Alexander & Catalano’s advertisements are misleading.

“Irrespective of whether Plaintiffs intend their commercials to be humorous, it cannot be denied that there is little likelihood that they were retained by aliens, have the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, or have stomped around downtown Syracuse, Godzilla-style,” lawyers for the attorney disciplinary committees charged with enforcing the rules wrote in court papers. “The falsity of the advertisements, alone, are sufficient to warrant restriction.”

Mr. Beck said advertising, even of this sort, serves the purpose of differentiating lawyers to the public.

“If lawyers are faceless, anonymous entities, consumers will have a hard time knowing which lawyers to contact,” he said. “But some lawyers feel that type of advertising is degrading to the profession as a whole.”

A spokesman for the state courts declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. The oral arguments will be given before Frederick Scullin of U.S. District Court.