Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (1977)
- Docket
- 76-1650
- Decided
- 1977-01-01
Summary
Question: Do professional ethics rules for the legal profession that ban in-person solicitation of non-lawyers violate free speech guarantees under the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: No. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that a state may constitutionally discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person and for financial gain under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the state has a right to prevent. The Court further held that the state need not show actual harm or injury to the solicited clients to sustain a disciplinary action. Unlike other forms of advertising concerning the terms and availability of legal services, in-person solicitation often exerts pressure upon and requires an immediate response from the recipient, without providing time for comparison or reflection. Because the Court held that a state has a particularly strong interest in preventing aspects of solicitation that involve fraud, undue influence, intimidation, and overreach, a state may adopt an outright ban in order to maintain standards in the legal profession. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which he expressed doubt as to whether the state’s interest in prohibiting even honest, unpressured commercial solicitation justified the restriction on the free flow of information. Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that Ohio acted within the limits prescribed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but argued that the Court should grant even greater leeway in the ability of state bar associations to regulate the conduct of their members.