We are accustomed to seeing advertising like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkB_mgJbXw . But before 1976, an attorney could be subject to disciplinary action by the state bar association for advertising because it was considered "unprofessional." In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, two attorneys, licensed to practice law in Arizona, opened a law office, which they called a "legal clinic," in Phoenix, aiming to provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid. After conducting their practice in this manner for two years, they concluded that their "legal clinic" could not survive unless the availability of legal services at low cost, and their fees for performing such services, were advertised. Consequently, in violation of Disciplinary Rules which prohibited Arizona lawyers from publicizing themselves by "commercial" means, the two attorneys placed an advertisement in a Phoenix newspaper, stating that they were offering "legal services at very reasonable fees," and listing their fees for uncontested divorces, uncontested non- business bankruptcies, and other matters. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the blanket suppression of advertising by attorneys violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, since lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine legal services will be performed. The court rejected arguments that such advertising would have an adverse effect on professionalism, would be inherently misleading, would have an adverse effect on the administration of justice, would produce undesirable economic effects, and would have an adverse effect on the quality of legal services. What is good about attorney advertising and what is bad about it, in your opinion?

Question

We are accustomed to seeing advertising like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkB_mgJbXw . But before 1976, an attorney could be subject to disciplinary action by the state bar association for advertising because it was considered "unprofessional." In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, two attorneys, licensed to practice law in Arizona, opened a law office, which they called a "legal clinic," in Phoenix, aiming to provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid. After conducting their practice in this manner for two years, they concluded that their "legal clinic" could not survive unless the availability of legal services at low cost, and their fees for performing such services, were advertised. Consequently, in violation of Disciplinary Rules which prohibited Arizona lawyers from publicizing themselves by "commercial" means, the two attorneys placed an advertisement in a Phoenix newspaper, stating that they were offering "legal services at very reasonable fees," and listing their fees for uncontested divorces, uncontested non- business bankruptcies, and other matters. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the blanket suppression of advertising by attorneys violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, since lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine legal services will be performed. The court rejected arguments that such advertising would have an adverse effect on professionalism, would be inherently misleading, would have an adverse effect on the administration of justice, would produce undesirable economic effects, and would have an adverse effect on the quality of legal services. What is good about attorney advertising and what is bad  about it, in your opinion?

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of We are accustomed to seeing advertising like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkB_mgJbXw . But before 1976, an attorney could be subject to disciplinary action by the state bar association for advertising because it was considered "unprofessional." In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, two attorneys, licensed to practice law in Arizona, opened a law office, which they called a "legal clinic," in Phoenix, aiming to provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid. After conducting their practice in this manner for two years, they concluded that their "legal clinic" could not survive unless the availability of legal services at low cost, and their fees for performing such services, were advertised. Consequently, in violation of Disciplinary Rules which prohibited Arizona lawyers from publicizing themselves by "commercial" means, the two attorneys placed an advertisement in a Phoenix newspaper, stating that they were offering "legal services at very reasonable fees," and listing their fees for uncontested divorces, uncontested non- business bankruptcies, and other matters. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the blanket suppression of advertising by attorneys violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, since lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine legal services will be performed. The court rejected arguments that such advertising would have an adverse effect on professionalism, would be inherently misleading, would have an adverse effect on the administration of justice, would produce undesirable economic effects, and would have an adverse effect on the quality of legal services. What is good about attorney advertising and what is bad  about it, in your opinion?

We Are Accustomed to Seeing Advertising Like This One: Http://www