Cases by Issue - Commercial Speech

Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-226

Petitioner

Florida Bar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Went For It Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 618 (1995)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1995

Advocates

Barry Scott Richard (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Bruce S. Rogow (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Florida Bar, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-639

Petitioner

Ibanez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

512 U.S. 136 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1994

Advocates

Silvia S. Ibanez (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lisa S. Nelson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ibanez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1775

Petitioner

Peel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 91 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven J. Marzen (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

William F. Moran, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Peel, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-16

Petitioner

Shapero

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Bar Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 466 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Donald L. Cox (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank P. Doheny, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shapero, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2166

Appellee

Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zauderer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1985

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Appellant)

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zauderer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

In Re R. M. J.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1431

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re R. M. J.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 191 (1982)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1982

Advocates

Charles B. Blackmar (on behalf of the Appellant)

John W. Inglish (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for In Re R. M. J., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

In Re Primus

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-56

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re Primus

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 412 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Primus, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1650

Appellee

Ohio State Bar Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohralik

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 447 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ohio State Bar Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:10 +0000

Location

Supreme Court of Arizona

1501 W. Washington Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 51.3492" N, 112° 5' 32.946" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-316

Appellee

State Bar of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bates

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 350 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, January 18, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1977

Advocates

William C. Canby, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

John P. Frank (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Daniel M. Friedman (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bates, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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.

United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

434

Petitioner

United Transportation Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 576 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United Transportation Union, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None