Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
| Bates v. State Bar of Arizona | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 18, 1977 Decided June 27, 1977 |
|
| Full case name | John R. Bates and Van O'Steen v. State Bar of Arizona |
| Citations | 433 U.S. 350 (more) |
| Prior history | Lawyer discipline imposed, 555 P.2d 640 (Ariz. 1976). |
| Holding | |
| The First Amendment allows lawyers to advertise in a manner that is not misleading to members of the general public. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens |
| Concur/dissent | Burger |
| Concur/dissent | Powell, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising by lawyers, rejecting it as an antiquated rule of etiquette.
The Court emphasized the benefits of the information that flows to consumers through advertising, positing that lawyer advertising would make legal services more accessible to the general public and improve the overall administration of justice. The Court had previously held in Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council that advertising by pharmacists regarding the price of prescription drugs was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.
John Bates and Van O'Steen graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law in 1972.
Two years later, they formed a legal clinic, in order to "provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid". As such, they accepted only cases involving "routine matters, such as uncontested divorces, uncontested adoptions, simple personal bankruptcies, and changes of name" (and refused complicated cases, such as contested divorces) and kept costs down "by extensive use of paralegals, automatic typewriting equipment, and standardized forms and office procedures". "Because appellants set their prices so as to have a relatively low return on each case they handled, they depended on substantial volume" in order to make the clinic profitable.
...
Wikipedia