Inc. Florida Bar v. Went For It

A bare 5-4 majority found that the rule was in fact permissible and reversed the ruling of the court of appeals, although both the majority and minority found the three-pronged test of Central Hudson applicable to the case at hand. The majority accepted the petitioner's claim of damage to the reputation of the bar by targeted direct-mail solicitations and found that the first requirement, a substantial state interest, was easily met by the petitioner, and several cases were quoted in which the Court found a substantial state interest in protecting the peace and privacy of citizens, indicating it did not find with the minority that the privacy implications of Shapero were valid as applied to this case.

In the opinion of the majority, the second prong of the test, that the rule must materially advance that interest, was met as well. The study results submitted by the petitioner well documented the adverse effects on public opinion of the solicitations, and the majority found them to be exhaustive and conclusive, rejecting the respondent's claim that the study had "no factual basis." It also rejected the minority's attack on the study's validity due to its lack of supporting documentation regarding methodology and other matters.

According to the majority, the petitioner's rule also met Central Hudson's final requirement that the regulation be no broader than necessary to accomplish the desired goal. It rejected the respondent's claim that the rule was overbroad because it did not distinguish between major and minor traumas citizens might experience and that such a rule might prevent citizens from quickly learning what their legal options were in such situations. Justice O'Connor noted many other avenues by which citizens needing access to a lawyer could find one, including television and radio advertisements, billboards, non-targeted direct-mail advertisements, and yellow pages listings in telephone directories, and further noted that the prohibition was for a 30-day period only.