Attorney Advertising
Other Forms of Advertising
Newspaper Advertising
The Supreme Court has upheld the right of attorneys to advertise in a newspaper. In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the right of a law firm to advertise its prices in a local newspaper. The Court said that:
advertising by attorneys may not be subjected to blanket suppression, and that the advertisement at issue [where the attorneys listed fixed prices for particular services] is protected, we, of course, do not hold that advertising by attorneys may not be regulated in any way.
Id. at 383. Some of the permissible regulations include: "[a]dvertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading of course is subject to restraint" id. and untruthful advertising. Id. The Court also states that "As with other varieties of speech, it follows as well that there may be reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of advertising." Id. at 384.
Television Advertising
The question of television advertising by attorneys has not been answered by the United States Supreme Court. It is assumed that any regulation of television advertising will have to meet the Central Hudson Test, but that because the medium of television advertising is much more persuasive and powerful than print advertising, the state will probably have a more compelling argument for state interest in such regulation.
For example, in Iowa State Bar Association v. Humphrey, 377 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1985), the court distinguished previous cases as being inapplicable to television. Asserting that television lies "closer to face-to-face solicitation" the court upheld strict standards for television advertising that prohibited appeals to emotions or self-laudatory statements. Id. at 646. The Iowa Supreme Court did not explicitly apply the Central Hudson Test. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in contrast, did explicitly apply the Central Hudson Test, when it determined that regulations that proscribed the use of drawings, animation, dramatization, 'absurd portrayals,' or music in television advertising. In re Felmeister and Isaccs, 518 A.2d 188, 188 (1986).
Television advertising, then, is probably open for greater state regulation than print forms of advertising, at least with respect to attorneys. Therefore, it is reasonable for an attorney to expect more limitations and control on television advertising than for other forms of communication medium. The question, of course, is where the Internet fits in the scheme of these results.
For more information on television advertising for attorneys, see Clive M. Doran, Television Advertising by Attorneys: A Deception Exception?, 29 New Eng. L. Rev 425 (1995).
Home | Table of Contents | Search
NOTHING IN THIS PRESENTATION REPRESENTS LEGAL ADVICE, AND NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS IMPLIED BY ANYTHING ON THIS SITE.
This page developed by Robert F. Bodi
for a Cyberlaw class at The
University of Akron - School
of Law
This page hosted by CleveNet; Original
material copyright © 1998 by Robert F. Bodi. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly
those of the page author. Information in
this document is subject to change without notice, and no guarantee of accuracy is given
nor implied. Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders. Cases cited in this document are
public domain. Links to other web sites are unique works and not the property of
Robert F. Bodi, and he is not responsible for their content. None of the links are
used by permission. This page last updated on Friday, November 20, 1998
The material appearing in this Web site is for information purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The information provided in this Web site is provided only as general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. This Web site is not intended to be advertising and we do not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this Web site in a state where this Web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
