The Oyez Project: Attorneys Issues - Commercial Speech Decisions

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

Did the Arizona rule, which restricted legal advertising, violate the freedom of speech of Bates and his firm as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court found that the rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Blackmun argued that commercial speech does merit First Amendment protection given the important functions it serves in society, such as providing consumers with information about services and products, and helping to allocate resources in the American system of free-enterprise. The Court held that allowing attorneys to advertise would not harm the legal profession or the administration of justice, and, in fact, would supply consumers with valuable information about the availability and cost of legal services.

Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc.

Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?

No. Lawyer advertising is commercial speech and as such, is accorded only a limited measure of First Amendment protection. Under this "intermediate scrutiny," restriction on commercial speech is permissible if the government (1) asserts a substantial interest in support of its regulation; (2) establishes that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest; and (3) demonstrates that the regulation is narrowly drawn.

Ibanez v. Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy

No details yet.

In Re Primus

No details yet.

In Re R. M. J.

No details yet.

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.

No details yet.

Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

No details yet.

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.

No details yet.

United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar

No details yet.

Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

No details yet.