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.
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.
By
Shari Claire LewisThis 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
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.
