Court Opinion

ID: 9637926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:26:35.733985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:01.946723
License: Public Domain

*525WARRINER, District Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I
With reluctance I concur with the opinion of the Court with respect to the advertising of non-fee information. Such concurrence is to be read strictly within the confines of the case presented. Insofar as the opinion speaks to the advertising of fee information, except for the fee for an initial consultation as hereinafter noted, I dissent.
I reiterate: For what I consider to be sound policy reasons I strongly deplore advertising by lawyers-. But policy alone cannot, under our system of government, erode rights guaranteed by our Constitution. I am satisfied -that the law requires what this Court has decided as to the right of plaintiffs to receive and gather non-fee consumer information about lawyers. So, policy considerations notwithstanding, judicial inquiry ends here on that issue. As a practical matter, I think it better for lawyers to avoid the pitfalls of advertising by avoiding, advertising altogether. But mine is not the province of setting policy. The question presented involves plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution and I cannot dispute the correctness of the law as expounded by Judge Merhige with respect to non-fee advertising under the facts presented in this case.
II
However, I believe there -are more than policy considerations at issue with regard to the advertising of lawyers’ fees. Indeed, what the law is on this point was left an open question by the Supreme Court in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumers Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). In that case the Appellees, as consumers of prescription drugs, brought suit against the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy challenging the validity under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Virginia statute declaring it to be unprofessional conduct for a licensed pharmacist to advertise the prices of prescription drugs.
The Court first considered whether or not “commercial speech” was wholly excluded from First Amendment protection and decided that it was not. 425 U.S. at 761, 96 S.Ct. 1817. The Court nevertheless cautioned in a footnote that “in concluding that commercial speech enjoys First Amendment protection, we have not held that it is wholly undifferentiable from other forms” 425 U.S. at 771, 96 S.Ct. at 1830, note 24. The Court explicated upon the difference as follows:
There are common sense differences between speech that does ‘no more than propose a commercial transaction’ and other varieties. Even if the differences do not justify the conclusion that commercial speech is valueless, and thus subject to complete suppression by the State, they nonetheless suggest that a different degree of protection is necessary to insure that the flow of truthful and legitimate commercial information is unimpaired. . Attributes such as . the greater objectivity and hardiness of commercial speech, may make it less necessary to tolerate inaccurate statements for fear of silencing the speaker. They may also make it appropriate that a commercial message appear in such a form, or include such additional information, warnings and disclaimers, as are necessary to prevent its being deceptive. (‘It is not difficult to choose statements, designs and devices which will not deceive.’) They may also make inapplicable the prohibition against price restraints. [Citations omitted] [Emphasis added] 425 U.S. at 771-772, 96 S.Ct. at 1830, note 24.
In concluding the opinion, the Court further noted that:
Some forms of commercial speech regulation are surely permissible. We mention a few only to make clear that they are not before us and therefore are not foreclosed by this case.
There is no claim, for example, that the prohibition on prescription drug price advertising is a mere time, place, and manner restriction. We have often approved *526restrictions of that kind provided they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they serve a significant governmental interest, and that in so doing they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Whatever may be the proper bounds of time, place, and manner restrictions on commercial speech, they are plainly exceeded by this Virginia statute, which singles out speech of a particular content and seeks to prevent its dissemination completely.
Nor is there any claim that prescription drug price advertisements are forbidden because they are false or misleading in any way. Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake. Obviously, much commercial speech is not provably false, or even wholly false, but only deceptive and misleading. We foresee no obstacle to a State’s dealing effectively with this problem. 425 U.S. at 770-771, 96 S.Ct. at 1830.
The Supreme Court in the Pharmacy case has further eroded the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech but has not obliterated it. Nor has it fashioned a comprehensive test to determine the extent of First Amendment protection afforded speech which is either purely commercial or has commercial aspects. The Court did cite examples as to the permissible scope of regulation in this area which I frankly find difficult to reconcile.
The Court, in dicta, recognized the propriety of restrictions as to time, manner and place which serve a legitimate State interest and leave ample opportunity for alternative communication of the information if said restrictions are justified “without reference to the content of regulated speech.” In footnote 24 the Court states that it is appropriate to require that a commercial message appear in such a form, or include such additional information, warnings or disclaimers as are necessary to prevent its being deceptive.
Since the regulation of speech to rectify its deceptive nature necessitates reference to the content of that speech, I find this an irresolvable conflict in the Pharmacy case. Notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency, I believe the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional soundness of regulating speech, commercial or otherwise, to prevent confusion or deception where regulation is the only feasible means of preventing the same, where the consequence to the public of failure to do so is severe and where alternative avenues of communication are not totally precluded. The Court specifically stated that it foresaw no problem with States “dealing effectively” with deceptive or misleading commercial speech.1 This must mean reasonable regulations as to time, manner and place are deemed constitutionally permissible even though there be reference to content when such reference is for the sole purpose of eliminating confusing or misleading speech communicated in what may be considered a commercial context.
The Court’s closing footnote leaves this door open with respect to the advertising of attorneys’ fees:
*527We stress that we have considered in this case the regulation of commercial advertising by pharmacists. Although we express no opinion as to other professions, the distinctions, historical and functional, between professions, may require consideration of quite different factors. Physicians and lawyers, for example, do not dispense standardized products; they render- professional services of almost infinite variety and nature, with the consequent, enhanced possibility for confusion and deception if they were to undertake certain kinds of advertising. 425 U.S. 773, 96 S.Ct. 1831.
Nevertheless, the Court in Pharmacy used strong language to indicate from a constitutional standpoint its clear disapproval of the advertising ban on fees relating to prescription drugs.2 Hence significant distinctions must be shown to justify a different conclusion as to the advertising of attorneys fees. I believe those distinctions are present.
Chief Justice Burger, concurring in Pharmacy, highlighted' some of the more important distinctions:
The Court notes that roughly 95% of all prescriptions are filled with dosage units already prepared by the manufacturer and sold to the pharmacy in that form. These are the drugs that have a market large enough to make their preparation profitable to the manufacturer; for the same reason, they are the drugs that it is profitable for the pharmacist to advertise. In dispensing these items, the pharmacist performs three tasks: he finds the correct bottle; he counts out the correct number of tablets or measures the right amount of liquid and he accurately transfers the doctor’s dosage instructions to the container. Without minimizing the potential consequences of error in performing these tasks or the importance of other tasks a professional pharmacist performs, it is clear that in this regard he no more renders a true professional service than a clerk who sells lawbooks.
Our decision today deals largely with the States’ power to prohibit pharmacists from advertising the retail price of prepackaged drugs. As the Court notes, quite different factors would govern were we faced with a law regulating or even prohibiting advertising by the traditional learned professions of medicine and law. The interest of the State in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ‘officers of the courts’ . . . . Attorneys . are engaged primarily in providing services in which professional judgment is a large component, a matter very different from a retail sale of labeled drugs already prepared by others.
I doubt that we know enough about evaluating the quality of legal services to know which claims of superiority are justifiable.- Nor am I sure that even advertising the price of certain professional services is not inherently misleading since what the professional must do will vary greatly in individual cases. It is important to note that the Court wisely leaves these issues to another day. 425 U.S. at 773-775, 96 S.Ct. at 1831-1832.
Ill
I am of the opinion that Chief Justice Burger touched the crucial distinction in his suggestion that advertising the price of the professional services of an attorney might be inherently misleading. While there may possibly be rare exceptions, I believe the advertising of a fee for any legal service other than for an initial consultation of a specified length is inherently misleading and thus, far from being helpful, is harmful. No matter what the service, there are entirely too many circumstances which will alter the fee appropriate to be charged.
*528It is true that a standard residential deed ought to cost about $20. It is not true, however, that the client shopping for a lawyer on the basis of his fee necessarily knows what a “standard residential deed” is. Further, a lawyer doesn’t know, in advertising his fee, whether the client will furnish the lawyer with the old deed so he can sit at his desk and dictate the new deed, or whether the client is simply going to tell him that it was the house he inherited from his Uncle Josh Johnson who died in 1937 — necessitating the lawyer going to the clerk’s office to get the description and derivation of title. There should be a difference in the fee charged in the two instances and yet the product in each case is nothing but a “standard residential deed.” I have drawn deeds where working out the derivation of title has taken hours. I added a surcharge for the time. Yet the product was a standard residential deed.
Even when a lawyer painstakingly explains to a client the variables that will be considered in arriving at a fee but nevertheless gives him an approximation of what the lawyer thinks the fee will be, the thing the client remembers is the figure mentioned. The client generally does not remember that the lawyer told him that it was an approximation and that he told him that the variables might increase the fee substantially. How much more will the client be misled and become distrustful of the law and lawyers when the láwyer charges more for his service than he advertised in black and white.
If one can casually conjure up examples where the standard residential deed can’t be standardized, how much more troublesome is the problem in the areas of uncontested divorce, change of name, uncontested adoption and the like? In my experience there simply isn’t any such thing as a “standard” service. Even after a lawyer has heard a client’s explanation of the service desired, most lawyers are hesitant in quoting a flat fee. Most prefer to quote a range, within which the fee is likely to fall. They do this not to be obscure or to mislead, but because experience has taught them that only when you have performed the service can you know for sure what it is worth.
As I hope the foregoing paragraphs have illustrated, deception and confusion is the nature of the beast in fee advertising and the beast will show its horns despite the utmost good faith. I know the overwhelming majority of lawyers would undertake to advertise fees fairly and accurately. Indeed, there exists an enforceable prohibition against lawyers who engage in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” 3 in advertising or otherwise. But this prohibition is not appropriate to overcome the evil in fee advertising, which is inherently misleading. If, as I believe, all fee advertising is misleading despite the good faith of the lawyer-advertiser, then the Code would prohibit all fee advertising. This merry-go-round starts nowhere and ends nowhere.
The Holmesion prohibition on shouting “Fire! ” in a crowded theater is familiar to us all. One would not remove that prohibition upon passage of an ordinance making it a crime to precipitate a panic which causes injury. The shouting of “Fire! ” is inherently and dangerously misleading and the good sense and judgment of mankind prohibits it without waiting to count the bodies at the exit doors.
Nor is the fee advertisement bar premised on any lack of confidence in the ability of the Bar to enforce the provisions of DR 2-101.4 The problem lies in the paradox of permitting a practice that is prohibited; that is, permitting fee advertisement, an inherently misleading activity, and at the same time, directing the Bar to enforce its bar against deceiving the public. This is the same as granting permission to the proverbial request to go swimming. “Yes, my darling daughter . . . but don’t go near the water.”
*529IV
Clearly the factual distinctions between the issue at hand and that in Pharmacy are significant, but I have yet to show precisely how and why these factual distinctions require a legal conclusion different from that in Pharmacy.
To begin with, there is no dispute that the right to know has equal footing with the right to speak under the First Amendment. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C., 395 U.S. 367, 390, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969). Nor is there any doubt that the State has a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating the conduct of lawyers to prevent deception in the practice of law. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. at 773, 96 S.Ct. 1817, note 25.
The .consumers’ right to know and the State’s substantial interest in protecting its citizens from deceptive legal practices are in conflict. The Supreme Court in Pharmacy and in other recent cases close on point has used, though not labeled as such, a balancing approach to resolve the conflict. See e. g., Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975). See also Comment, Advertising of Professional Fees: Does the Consumer Have a Right to Know, 21 S.D.L.Rev. 310 (1976). The problem is that the Court has not, except in a general and incidental manner, explicated upon what factors to consider and what weight to apply to the various considerations. I am left to my own devices.
I believe that DR 2 — 101, insofar as it regulates the advertising of fees, is a time, manner and place restriction. Accordingly, the balancing process should focus on the reasonableness of the restrictions in this context. I gleaned earlier from Pharmacy that prohibiting advertising of lawyers’ fees (other than an initial consultation) in order to prevent confusion and deception would be constitutionally permissible provided, (1) the regulation is the only feasible means of preventing the confusion or deception, (2) the consequence to the public of failure to so regulate would be severe, (3) alternative areas of communication of the desired information are not totally precluded, and (4), in addition to the above, the regulation is reasonable or justifiable in light of First Amendment considerations.
I have already presented the factual basis for assuming that advertising of attorneys’ fees is inherently confusing and deceptive and for assuming that the prohibition imposed by DR 2-101 is the only feasible means of avoiding the same. No one would seriously dispute the severity of the consequence of deceptive practices by lawyers so I will not deal with this point further. This leaves open the questions of alternative avenues for communicating the desired information and of the reasonableness of the regulation in a First Amendment context, which is where I opine the balancing comes into play.
With respect to alternative avenues of disseminating the desired information we must remember that “advertising” as it is commonly understood is not itself speech but a manner in which speech may be communicated. Restricting that manner of communication totally may indeed severely hamper the flow of information but it is not equivalent to total prohibition of speech. It is important not to lose sight of this distinction.
I am aware the Supreme Court has observed that “in a society in which each individual has but limited time and resources ... he relies necessarily upon the press to bring him in convenient form the facts.” Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 491, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1044, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). However, when weighed against the harm of deception and confusion with respect to information about legal services, mere convenience has to take a second seat.
Surely the wisest approach concerning dissemination of information about legal fees is for the prospective client to talk to the lawyer in person. Only then can the inevitable peculiarities of the client’s particular legal problem be given proper consideration in estimating appropriate fees.
*530In Pharmacy the Court seemingly concluded that no viable alternative avenues of informing the public of the price of prescription drugs was left open by the Virginia statute in question:
Whatever may be the proper bounds of time, place,' and manner restrictions on commercial speech, they are plainly exceeded by the Virginia statute, which singles out speech of a particular content and seeks to prevent its dissemination completely. [Emphasis added] 425 U.S. at 771, 96 S.Ct. at 1830.
As has been pointed out, unlike prescription drugs, there are in truth no standard fees for legal services. Prohibiting the printing of what purports to be standard fees cannot be said to prohibit the flow of information because, having read the ad, the reader in actuality remains uninformed as to what he thought he was learning. More regrettably, he is now also misinformed and may act on the basis of misinformation as he otherwise would not have acted.
Additionally, there is a distinction between the Virginia statute questioned in Pharmacy and DR 2-101 which may explain why the Supreme Court found that price information in that case was completely prevented from dissemination and why I find that DR 2-101 does not accomplish the same with regard to lawyers’ fees. The Virginia statute in pertinent part reads:
Any pharmacist shall be considered guilty of unprofessional conduct who . publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms for professional services or for drugs containing narcotics or for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription. Va.Code Ann. § 54-524.35 (1974).
DR 2-101 on the other hand is silent on the issue of advertising attorneys’ fees. The restriction is by implication and is of a substantially different nature than the restriction in the above statute:
(B) A lawyer shall not publicize himself, his partner, or associate as a lawyer through newspaper or magazine advertisements, radio or television announcements, display advertisements in city or telephone directories, or other means of commercial publicity, nor shall he authorize or permit others to do so in his behalf except as permitted under DR 2-103. This' does not prohibit limited and dignified identification of a lawyer as a lawyer as well as by name
The advertising of lawyers’ or law firms’ fees for legal services is not listed in DR 2-103 and thus is not permitted. Unlike the Virginia statute which precludes advertisement of prescription drug prices “in any manner whatsoever” whether “directly or indirectly,” I read DR 2-101 as prohibiting the advertisement of fees only if they are published in connection with a particular lawyer or law firm. There is no prohibition, for instance, against a group, such as Consumer Union,' gathering average estimates of fees that lawyers charge for various legal services and publishing the same absent representations as to what an individual lawyer or law firm will charge for specified services. In this way consumers could have general guidelines as to what lawyers on the average wind up charging for various legal services without being misled into thinking that if they go to a certain lawyer they will get a certain price for a certain service. Even such a publication must be encompassed about with caveats and disclaimers.
Third, and most importantly, the most viable avenue of communication concerning fee information left open by DR 2-101 is face to face consultation with lawyers. Any legal problem worth seeing a lawyer about is worth inquiring in person as to the charge, among other things, before choosing a lawyer.
Lastly, and apart, from the above considerations, I must determine whether or not the Rule’s restriction on advertising attorneys’ fees is reasonable in light of the First Amendment. In balancing what I consider to be the relevant factors it comes to mind *531that the State has a strong legal and historical role in closely policing its lawyers; that commercial speech is still not on an equal footing with other areas of speech; and that inherently confusing and misleading speech has shallow, if any, social value and can cause great harm, particularly in the circumstance at issue. Drawing from my personal experience as a lawyer for many years, I am convinced that the harm to the legal profession and to the public at large may be irreparable.
On the other side, I must contend with what was said in Pharmacy. The Court said that the State’s protectiveness of its citizens rests in large part on the supposed advantages of their being kept ignorant. This consideration weighs little herein where, as distinguished from Pharmacy, I find the mode of communicating the information proscribed renders it inherently misleading. If someone seeking certain information is given false or misleading information he is in more of a state of ignorance than before. Pharmacy also stated that the ban on advertising questioned therein did not directly affect professional standards one way or the other. There the professional conduct amounted to the selling of a product. But where a truly professional service is being rendered the quality thereof will have to suffer when the price through advertising is driven below a certain margin. And, unlike the substitution of ingredients in a drug, the shoddy will be difficult to ferret out.
Pharmacy also complains of insulation from competition caused by the ban in that case. Where the products in question are virtually identical the point is well taken. The competitive variable is the cost. But where the product is an intricate and complicated professional service, allowing price advertising destroys the more important existing competition of quality without substituting a fair alternative measure with which to choose a lawyer.
Finally, Pharmacy states with reference to the drug price ban that there is “an alternative to this highly paternalistic approach. That alternative is to assume that this information is not in itself harmful, that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open up the channels rather than to close them.” 425 U.S. at 770, 96 S.Ct. at 1829.
Again, I agree with the logic in Pharmacy as it applies to that case. To be sure, this judge does not favor a paternalistic approach to dealing with problems concerning the citizenry. But I cannot assume in this case, as was rightfully assumed in Pharmacy, that advertised lawyers’ fees are not in themselves harmful. Because the information is inherently misleading it is in itself harmful and very harmful indeed as has been explained. It is not being paternalistic to recognize that a layman will not understand the numerous variables that will usually cause fees to be substantially different from what the advertisement that lured him to the attorney’s office promised. A lawyer has experienced three years in law school and some years of practice to learn with some degree of reasonableness how to determine fees: Lawyers know they cannot price services fairly and reasonably without reference to a specific set of facts. Even then, setting a fee is one of the more difficult tasks of a lawyer. Under the' circumstance I do not think that the ban in question is paternalistic. It is, instead, realistic.
On balance, I find that the Rule as it concerns the advertising of attorneys’ fees is a reasonable regulation as to time, manner and place and as such is not violative of the First Amendment.
I cannot concur with that portion of the opinion which permits advertising for any service other than for an initial consultation of a specified length of time. The advertisement might add that approximations of the fee to be charged for requested services could be given at the initial consultation.
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I would dismiss. This is an action immediately and squarely against the Supreme *532Court of Virginia and its organs. In the circumstances here, comity requires this court to order dismissal.1 That disposition will be without prejudice to the pursuit in the Supreme Court of Virginia by the plaintiffs of their claims with opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.2 Incidentally, in my view abstention is not the remedy for ruptured comity.
Throughout it must be remembered that this is not a suit against a State administrative agency action. Erdmann v. Stevens, post, 458 F.2d 1205, 1208 (2 Cir. 1972). It is against the highest court of Virginia, a part of the State’s separate judicial department, a coordinate of the separate Federal judicial department. The State Bar and its Committee and the Supreme Court of Virginia are of one; the former are operating instruments of the Court. They carry its burden of policing the profession. The Bar’s character and status.in this regard are delineated with particularity and present apposition in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975), passim, expositing how the Court speaks through the Bar and, in turn, the Bar for the Court. Certainly, one of the foundations of federalism is the teaching that the judiciaries of the two sovereign governments should not collide head on or be pitted one against the other when, as here, a citizen’s rights and privileges under the Constitution of the United States can otherwise be safeguarded without loss of Federal watchfulness.
True, a Federal court must not abdicate its jurisdiction to protect a citizen merely because there is recourse and remedy available in the State court. But presently there is no shirking of duty. Federal jurisdiction is deferred only temporarily and in sight is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court as a matter of right. 28 U.S.C. 1257(2); see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., post, 420 U.S. 592, 605, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975). Since there is no “showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief”, Younger v. Harris, post, 401 U.S. 37, 54, 91 S.Ct. 746, 755, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), comity is the felicitous solution and is dictated by the authorities.
The admonition of Younger v. Harris, supra, at 44, 91 S.Ct. at 750, although referring to a criminal case, well summarizes the theorem of this dissent:
“This underlying reason for restraining courts of equity from interfering with criminal prosecutions is reinforced by an even more vital consideration, the notion of ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.' This, perhaps for lack of a better and clearer way to describe it, is referred to by many as ‘Our Federalism,’ . . . . What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” (Accent added and citations omitted.)
In Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 603, 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 1208, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 *533(1975), the Younger policy was adapted to civil causes and this reminding statement is now insistently apt:
“The seriousness 'of federal judicial interference with state civil functions has long been recognized by this Court. We have consistently required that when federal courts are confronted with requests for such relief, they should abide by standards of restraint that go well beyond those of private equity jurisprudence. .” (Accent added.)
With like vehemence inveighing against Federal occupation of a State court realm, and with strikingly similar features to the instant litigation, is Erdmann v. Stevens, supra, 458 F.2d 1205 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 889, 93 S.Ct. 126, 34 L.Ed.2d 147 (1972). There an action was brought in the Federal District Court against the judges of the Appellate Division, First Department, State of New York, for a declaration and injunction against disciplinary measures taken by them and asserted to be in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for complainant’s “failure to state facts entitling him to federal intervention ”. Like the instant plaintiffs, he had shown no “extraordinary circumstances of bad faith or harassment.” The opinion of the Court speaks forthrightly to the importance of sticking to the Younger pronouncement:
“Thus, ... we see no sound reason for exempting a pending state court disciplinary proceeding from the principles of federal-state comity underlying Younger and its companion cases. The issue before us is not merely the constitutionality of a state court’s action in a suit between third parties but its application of standards established by it for observance by its own officers. Although a court may neither act arbitrarily with respect to those licensed by it nor otherwise violate their constitutional rights, . state courts have traditionally been allowed wide discretion in the establishment and application of standards of professional conduct and moral character to be observed by their court officers.
My thesis is not a disclaimer or disavowal of jurisdiction. Even though the power to decide is in this court, because of considerations of comity we do not have the “right” at this stage of the litigation. Erdmann made this distinction. Id. at 1212.
Quite recently this Circuit has given heartening spirit to this philosophy. In American Civil Liberties Union v. Bozardt, 539 F.2d 340 (4 Cir. 1976), that Court held that the agenda and acts of the Board of Commissioners on Griévances and Discipline of the South Carolina Bar were intramural the Supreme Court of the State. I have just now said so, in characterizing the grist and grindings of the Virginia State Bar. Erdmann was of the same mind in regard to discipline- in New York. Id. at 1208, quoted supra. Further, in Bozardt, Judge Boreman said for the Court:
“. . . [Principles of comity and federalism require that the federal courts not be permitted to interfere in . . ongoing state proceedings.” (Accent added.)
He maintained, too, that the patterns of Younger and Erdmann should be imitated by dismissing rather than abstaining. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 580, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973).
The mention of “ongoing proceedings” has given rise to argument that the present controversy does not fit the pigeonhole of Younger and its species, because in this suit there is no counterpart of separate proceedings. But the fact that I do not rely upon the narrow holding in the Younger line of cases does not infirm the soundness of my conclusion. Comity is the veritable touchstone of Younger, Huffman, Erdmann and Bozardt and it is to be heeded now because the present facts proclaim an even more intimate confrontation of State judiciary by the Federal — a violent abrogation of federalism.
This action should be dismissed with costs.

. Although not exactly on point, the Court cited Gertz v. Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) for the proposition that untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake. Gertz at page 340, 94 S.Ct. at page 3007 states:
[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate on public issues. They belong to that category of utterances which ‘are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.’ [citations omitted]
Like false statements, misleading and confusing speech is of doubtful social value and in commercial context may be a severe detriment, perhaps not, at least in the short run, to order but certainly to morality and to health and welfare as well. Such speech should be weighed accordingly when balanced against these legitimate State interests in determining the extent of protection afforded by the First Amendment.

. . [T]he justifications Virginia has offered for suppressing the flow of prescription drug price information, far from persuading us that the flow is not protected by the First Amendment, have reinforced our view that it is. 425 U.S. at 770, 96 S.Ct. at 1830:

. Va.Code of Prof.Resp. II, DR 1-102(A)(4); see also, Va.Code Ann. § 54-73 (1974).

. See n. 3, supra.

. True, the American Bar Association is also a party defendant but admittedly it does not assert any direct disciplinary powers over the Virginia lawyers; its only possible sanctions against them is whatever restraint its professional reproval might impose; and a decision on the State Bar Code alone would in reality be an adjudication of the case against the ABA, even in view of the recent relaxation of the ABA Code.

. The Supreme Court of Virginia has expressed its willingness to accept this case and has on two previous occasions accepted petitions of this nature: Application of Titus, 213 Va. 289, 191 S.E.2d 798 (1972); Application of Brown, 213 Va. 282, 191 S.E.2d 812 (1972); see Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 359 F.Supp. 549 (E.D.Va.1973).