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.
Questions
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?
Conclusions
-
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.
Nike v. Kasky: An Invitation to Discard the Commercial Speech Doctrine
Over the past 60 years, this Court’s approach to speech uttered by business interests has...
Narrow Victory For Dentists In Supreme Court has Limited Significance for Future Antitrust Cases
Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 3, Winter 2000
Any new antitrust decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is bound to prompt a flurry...