<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Attorneys Issues - Commercial Speech</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/attorneys/commercial-speech/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Bates v. State Bar of Arizona</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;In regulating the Arizona Bar, the Supreme Court of Arizona restricted advertising by attorneys. Bates was a partner in a law firm which sought to provide low-cost legal services to people of moderate income who did not qualify for public legal aid. Bates and his firm would only accept routine legal matters (many of which did not involve litigation) and depended on a large number of patrons given the low financial return from each client. In assessing their concept of legal services, Bates's firm decided that it would be necessary to advertise its availability and low fees.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_316/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Went For It, Inc., (a lawyer referral service) and John T. Blakely (a Florida attorney) were sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives who had been injured in an accident. According to Florida Bar rules, such direct and targeted mailings are prohibited for thirty days following an accident or disaster.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_226/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Ibanez v. Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_639/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>In Re Primus</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_56/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>In Re R. M. J.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1431/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1650/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1775/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_16/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_434/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_2166/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
