 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (February 2016) |
| 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) 97 S. Ct. 2691; 53 L. Ed. 2d 810; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 23 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Attorney discipline imposed, In re Bates, 555 P.2d 640 (Ariz. 1976); probable jurisdiction noted, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 429 U.S. 813 (1976). |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 881 (1977). |
| 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 unanimous (Parts I, II); Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens (Parts III, IV) |
| Concur/dissent | Burger |
| Concur/dissent | Powell, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Rehnquist (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV | |
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.[1] 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.