Opinion ID: 2392444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: An Analysis of Bates

Text: We analyze the holding of Bates without comment as to its rationale or criticism of the results reached. We deal with a fait accompli and it would serve no useful purpose for us to join issue. Our task is to interpret the mandate of Bates and to translate it into a reasonable rule that is consistent with its holding. Specifically pretermitting the issues of the peculiar problems associated with advertising claims relating to the quality of legal services and the problems associated with in-person solicitation of clients, the Court made it clear that [t]he heart of the dispute ... is whether lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine services will be performed. (Emphasis supplied.) 97 S.Ct. at 2700, 2701. The opinion proceeds upon the assumption that [t]he only services that lend themselves to advertising are the routine ones: the uncontested divorce, the simple adoption, the uncontested personal bankruptcy, the change of name, and the like. (Emphasis supplied). Id., at 2703. The Court specifically noted the difficulties of enforcement and observed that the vigilance of a regulatory agency will be required and that the overseeing of advertising will be burdensome. Id., at 2706-2707. The Court specifically recognized that regulation was proper and that reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of advertising may be imposed, and false, deceptive or misleading advertising may be prohibited. Id., at 2709. The Court further recognized that the problems of advertising on the electronic broadcast media will warrant special consideration. These are the governing principles to which we must adhere as we attempt to fashion rules that will comply with Bates .