Opinion ID: 1887901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District's substantial interest.

Text: We are satisfied that the Act addresses a substantial governmental interest, namely, the protection of consumers from unsolicited and often distressing one-on-one intrusions upon their privacy, effected for the purpose of securing their business in the immediate aftermath of an automobile accident, a time when many of them are likely to be in physical or emotional distress or in vulnerable circumstances. In Went For It, which we consider dispositive of the First Amendment issue in this case, the Supreme Court held that a Florida Bar rule prohibiting personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster did not violate the First Amendment (as applied to the State of Florida by the Fourteenth). 515 U.S. at 620, 115 S.Ct. 2371. The Court so held even though solicitation by direct mail is far less intrusive [11] than the kinds of solicitation by uninvited personal visits or unwanted telephone contacts at issue in the present appeal. The Court concluded in Went For It that Florida had a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers. Id. at 624, 115 S.Ct. 2371. The Court stated (that [o]ur precedents also leave no room for doubt that the protection of potential clients' privacy is a substantial state interest,) id. at 625, 115 S.Ct. 2371 (quoting Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 769, 113 S.Ct. 1792, 123 L.Ed.2d 543 (1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the State bears a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions. Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 460, 98 S.Ct. 1912.