Lawyer Ads in Cyberspace

Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <i>Bates v. State Bar of Arizona</i> (433 U.S. 350 (1977; holding that 'blanket suppression' of attorney advertisements was an unconstitutional interference with First Amendment rights. However, the Court also recognized that some regulation of attorney advertising was necessary to protect consumers who lacked legal sophistication. Thus, the Court ruled that statements in lawyer ads that might pass muster in other industries could be misleading and were subject to reasonable regulation as to time, place and manner. The conflict between the First Amendment right to speech and the necessity and reasonableness of regulation of attorney advertising has continued to evolve since <i>Bates</i>, responding not just to changing mores regarding professional conduct, but to the challenges of new technology media.

20 minute read May 30, 2007 at 10:58 AM
By
Shari Claire Lewis
Lawyer Ads in Cyberspace

Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 U.S. 350 (1977; available at www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0433_0350_ZS.html), holding that 'blanket suppression' of attorney advertisements was an unconstitutional interference with First Amendment rights.

This premium content is locked for Marketing the Law Firm subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN Marketing the Law Firm

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Innovation Engineering: How Firms Can Think Bigger and Ask Better Questions

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Legal AI’s Biggest Mistake: Treating All Workflows the Same

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026