Bates v. State Bar of Arizona - Significance, Commercial Speech Doctrine Extended To Lawyer Advertising, Advertising Lawyers, Further Readings
John R. Bates, Van O'Steen
State Bar of Arizona
That state rules prohibiting lawyers from advertising violate the Sherman Antitrust Act by restraining trade, and violate the First Amendment by inhibiting free speech.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
William C. Canby, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John P. Frank
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
Date of Decision
27 June 1977
Although the U.S. Supreme Court disregarded the petitioner's antitrust claim, citing their right of free speech, as well as the public's right to receive their message concerning competitive legal fees, the Court ruled in favor of lawyers John Bates and Van O'Steen.
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
- Ohralik v. Ohio Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978).
American Bar Association, Lawyer Advertising at the Crossroads: Professional Policy Considerations. Chicago: American Bar Association, Commission on Advertising, 1995.
- Beal v. Doe - Significance, Title Xix, Medicaid, And Pennsylvania, A Question Of Statutory Construction, Dissent: Forcing Poor Women To Have Children
- Ballew v. Georgia - Significance, Fulton County Looks Behind The Green Door, The Court's Social-science Approach
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona - Further Readings
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona - Significance
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona - Commercial Speech Doctrine Extended To Lawyer Advertising
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona - Advertising Lawyers
- Other Free Encyclopedias