Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorneyappellant
attorneyappellant

Related Cases

Wright v. Pennamped, 657 N.E.2d 1223
View Case »
U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5355, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7318
View Case »
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261, 56 USLW 4733
View Case »
Adell v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver and Schwartz, P.C., 170 Mich.App. 196, 428 N.W.2d 26
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652, 53 USLW 4587, 1985-2 Trade Cases P 66,645

Facts

The appellant, an attorney in Ohio, ran two newspaper advertisements: one offering representation for drunken driving cases with a refund policy if convicted, and another promoting representation for women injured by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. The latter included an illustration of the device and stated that the attorney was handling related lawsuits. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against the attorney, alleging that both advertisements violated various Disciplinary Rules of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility.

The appellant, an attorney in Ohio, ran two newspaper advertisements: one offering representation for drunken driving cases with a refund policy if convicted, and another promoting representation for women injured by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the attorney's advertisements constituted violations of Ohio's Disciplinary Rules and whether the disciplinary actions taken against him were constitutional under the First Amendment.

The main legal issues were whether the attorney's advertisements constituted violations of Ohio's Disciplinary Rules and whether the disciplinary actions taken against him were constitutional under the First Amendment.

Rule

The court applied the principle that commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, and restrictions on such speech must serve a substantial governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The court applied the principle that commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, and restrictions on such speech must serve a substantial governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Analysis

The court found that the attorney's advertisements were not false or deceptive and that the governmental interests justifying restrictions on in-person solicitation did not apply to print advertising. The court emphasized that the use of truthful information in advertisements should not be penalized, and the state had not demonstrated a substantial interest in banning illustrations or legal advice in attorney advertising.

The court found that the attorney's advertisements were not false or deceptive and that the governmental interests justifying restrictions on in-person solicitation did not apply to print advertising.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the reprimand regarding the misleading drunken driving advertisement but reversed the reprimand concerning the Dalkon Shield advertisement, ruling that the attorney's First Amendment rights were violated by the restrictions on his advertising.

The court affirmed the reprimand regarding the misleading drunken driving advertisement but reversed the reprimand concerning the Dalkon Shield advertisement, ruling that the attorney's First Amendment rights were violated by the restrictions on his advertising.

Who won?

The appellant, the attorney, prevailed in part as the court ruled that his rights to free speech were violated by the disciplinary actions taken against him for the Dalkon Shield advertisement.

The appellant, the attorney, prevailed in part as the court ruled that his rights to free speech were violated by the disciplinary actions taken against him for the Dalkon Shield advertisement.

You must be