Court Opinion

ID: 9547687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:50:26.766373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:56.948952
License: Public Domain

OAKS, Justice:
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision that the free speech protections of the Constitution prevent the states from entirely prohibiting truthful advertising of the availability and price of legal services, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977), this Court adopted changes to the Disciplinary Rules under Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that permitted limited advertising by lawyers in newspapers. Thereafter, in 1979, the Court ruled that there was no reasonable basis upon which to allow advertising in newspapers and to deny that right as to radio, television, magazines, and trade journals. The Court therefore directed the Bar to submit revised rules that would not discriminate among the various information media. In re Application to Allow Advertising by Electronic Media, No. 16347, filed May 21, 1979. In June, 1979, the Bar proposed an interim rule, but the Court took no action.
On October 7, 1981, the Bar submitted an entirely revised version of the Disciplinary Rules under Canon 2, including the subject of advertising by lawyers. The proposed changes from the rules adopted in 1977 are set out in the Appendix. Aside from minor editorial amendments, the substantive changes are in DR 2-101(A) through (I), DR 2-102(A), and DR 2-105. The Bar petitioned for adoption of these revised rules. Brian M. Barnard, a member of the Bar, filed objections, summarized hereafter. The Court heard oral arguments and received briefs on the Bar’s petition and the objections and supplemental memoranda on the United States Supreme Court’s closely related decision in In re R— M. J— , - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982).
We approve the proposed revision of the Disciplinary Rules under Canon 2, with the modifications and for the reasons described hereafter.
I.
Our authority to act in this matter stems from the judicial power conferred on this Court by Article VIII, § 1 of the Utah Constitution. Inherent in that judicial power is the power to regulate the practice of law. In re Integration and Governance of the Utah State Bar, Utah, 632 P.2d 845 (1981); Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 559-60, 133 P.2d 325, 330, 144 A.L.R. *993839 (1943). Accord, Berberian v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 114 R.I. 197, 330 A.2d 813 (1975); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 519 P.2d 288, 290 (1974); In re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Association, 133 Neb. 283, 275 N.W. 265, 114 A.L.R. 151 (1937); In re Opinion of the Justices, 279 Mass. 607, 180 N.E. 725, 81 A.L.R. 1059 (1932). In this instance, we exercise our rule-making powers, rather than our powers to resolve a specific case or controversy on an evidentiary record.
II.
The objector contends that the Bar’s proposal is at odds with our May, 1979, direction against discrimination among the various information media because it allows advertising by newspaper or electronic media while prohibiting advertising by billboards, direct mail, circulars, and the use of promotional items like matchbooks and inscribed pencils and pens. (DR 2-101(C) and (H)). He argues that even tasteful advertising in the programs of the Utah Symphony and the Repertory Dance Theatre, which he has done in the past, would be prohibited by the proposed rules. The objector requests that the Court decline to approve the Bar’s proposal, and direct instead that, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision In re R— M. J — , supra, the Bar propose new revisions which restrict only advertising that is inherently false, deceptive, or misleading.
The state obviously has a substantial and compelling interest in protecting the public from false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. at 383, 97 S.Ct. at 2708, and from those aspects of solicitation that involve fraud, undue influence, intimidation, overreaching, and other forms of vexatious conduct. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 462, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 1921, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978). But we believe these are not the only substantial state interests in advertising by lawyers. In our May, 1979, order directing the Bar to re-submit rules to enlarge the scope of advertising, we stated:
Such revision of the rules should include provisions and restrictions which will guard against the making of common, cheap or undignified claims and be limited to such representations as will, to the greatest degree possible, harmonize with the purpose of maintaining the high standards of dignity and professionalism appropriate to the practice of law and the administration of justice.
In re Application to Allow Advertising by Electronic Media, supra. We reaffirm that principle, and add our specific finding that the state of Utah has a substantial interest in maintaining high standards of dignity and professionalism in the manner in which attorneys, who are the officers of its courts, present themselves to the public and perform their important functions in the practice of law and the administration of justice.
We find nothing to the contrary in the three United States Supreme Court decisions that have defined the newly recognized free speech interest in advertising by lawyers.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, upset a prohibition against any advertising of the price and availability of routine legal services. The Court rejected arguments that any advertising would undermine the attorney’s sense of dignity and self-worth, erode clients’ trust in attorneys, and tarnish the dignified public image of the profession. But the Court did not state or imply that these considerations were unimportant— only that they did not rise to the level of an acceptable justification “for the suppression of all advertising by attorneys.” 433 U.S. at 379, 97 S.Ct. at 2706. The Court even quoted approvingly from an earlier case which acknowledged that “[t]he interest of the States 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.’ ” 433 U.S. at 361—62, 97 S.Ct. at 2697-98. The Court concluded its opinion by cautioning that “[a]s with other varieties of speech, it follows as well that there may be reasonable restrictions on *994the time, place, and manner of advertising.” 433 U.S. at 384, 97 S.Ct. at 2709.
In Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, supra, the Court upheld the indefinite suspension of a lawyer who had violated state rules against in-person solicitation of prospective clients. In rejecting contentions that these rules constituted an impermissible interference with commercial speech under the rule. in Bates, the Court distinguished informational advertising from the pressures and dangers involved in in-person solicitation, and also relied on what it called the state’s “special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions.” 436 U.S. at 460, 98 S.Ct. at 1920. “While lawyers act in part as ‘self-employed businessmen,’ ” the Court observed, “they also act ‘as trusted agents of their clients, and as assistants to the court in search of a just solution to disputes.’ ” Id. The Court agreed that protecting the public from the unfavorable aspects of solicitation was a legitimate and important state interest.
The Court’s most recent decision, In re R— M. J — , - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982), invalidated Missouri rules that (1) limited lawyer advertising to specifically prescribed types of information published only in newspapers, periodicals, and the yellow pages of telephone directories, and (2) limited professional announcements to cards briefly describing changes of name or address, which could be sent only to lawyers, current and former clients, personal friends, and relatives. The lawyer disciplined in that case had advertised in newspapers and the yellow pages, describing his areas of practice in different terms than the categories prescribed in the rules, and had also mailed professional announcements to a list of addresses going beyond the groups authorized in the rule. In reversing the discipline imposed for this violation, the Supreme Court concluded that the Missouri rules were unconstitutionally broad since the state had asserted no substantial interest in such extensive prohibitions on the free flow of commercial speech about the practice of law.
Although acknowledging that the state’s principal interest was in preventing advertising that was false, deceptive, or misleading, the Court nevertheless acknowledged the possibility of other interests, not proven or asserted in that case:
Even when a communication is not misleading, the state retains some authority to regulate. But the state must assert a substantial interest and the interference with speech must be in proportion to the interest served. [Citation omitted.] Restrictions must be narrowly drawn, and the state lawfully may regulate only to the extent regulation furthers the state’s substantial interest.
102 S.Ct. at 937-38.
We emphasize, as we have throughout the opinion, that the States retain the authority to regulate advertising that is inherently misleading or that has proven to be misleading in practice. There may be other substantial state interests as well that will support carefully drawn restrictions. But although the states may regulate commercial speech, the First and Fourteenth Amendments require that they do so with care and in a manner no more extensive than reasonably necessary to further substantial interests.
102 S.Ct. at 939.
We find in these three decisions a direction that any restriction on lawyer advertising must be justified by a substantial state interest and that the restriction must be narrowly drawn so that any interference with free speech is proportional to the state interest involved. In addition, in its first decision recognizing free speech protections for commercial speech, the Supreme Court stressed that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protected speech may be valid where they “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1830, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976) (invalidating statute prohibiting prescription drug advertising by pharmacists). These principles govern our consideration of the proposed revisions of *995the Disciplinary Rules and the objections thereto.
III.
By allowing lawyer advertising in all “public communications media,” the proposed revision of DR 2-101(A) leaves open such extensive alternative channels for communication of information about legal services that it is not subject to the general objection that invalidated the rules in Bates or JR— M. J — . However, we agree with the objector that the rule sweeps too broadly by appearing to prohibit advertising in the printed programs of public events like cultural activities, which programs are indistinguishable in principle (for this purpose) from newspapers or other periodicals. To clarify that latitude and to sharpen the distinction between “public communications media” and professional announcements, discussed below, we amend DR 2-101(A), “Publicity and Advertising,” as follows (deletion noted; addition underlined):
A lawyer may advertise services through public communications media such as a professional announcement, telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, radio or television, through professional announcements, and through printed programs for events available to the public. A lawyer shall not make any false, fraudulent or misleading statement about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services to a client or prospective client. The foregoing shall be subject to the further provisions of this Rule 2-101 and the provisions of DR 2-102 through DR 2-105.
IV.
The restrictions on advertising contained in proposed DR 2-101(B), (D), (E), (P), (G), and (I) are appropriate and necessary to effectuate the substantial state interests in avoiding false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, in maintaining the high standards of dignity and professionalism required for officers of the courts in the practice of law and the administration of justice, and in enforcing the rules designed to protect those interests. These revisions are adopted as proposed.
V.
The time, place, and manner restrictions on lawyer advertising contained in DR 2-101(C), such as the prohibition on the use of billboards, circulars, matchbooks, and inscribed pencils and pens challenged by objector, are appropriate and necessary to serve the substantial state interest in maintaining the high standards of dignity and professionalism required for officers of the courts in the practice of law and the administration of justice. In the context of the alternative channels available under other rules, these restrictions pose no significant barrier to the communication of needed information about legal services. It is so held in In re Petition for Rule of Court Governing Lawyer Advertising, Tenn., 564 S.W.2d 638, 644 (1978); Bishop v. Committee on Professional Ethics, 521 F.Supp. 1219, 1230, 1232 (S.D.Iowa, 1981) (“dignified” not unconstitutionally vague), and we agree. The objections are not well taken. This subsection is adopted as proposed.
VI.
DR 2-101(H) reads as follows:
Except as permitted under DR 2-103 and 2-104, in-person, direct mail, and similar direct forms of contact with a prospective client by a lawyer for the purpose of soliciting business, are prohibited.
In company with DR 2-102(A), which forbids lawyers or law firms from using professional cards or announcements in violation of DR 2-101(A) and (B), the above-quoted subsection in effect prohibits mailing professional cards or announcements to prospective clients, even where the information they contain is not false, deceptive, or misleading. The objector maintains that this subsection’s prohibition of all “direct mail” contacts with prospective clients by professional cards or announcements is contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in R— M. J— . 102 S.Ct. at 939. We agree. The substantial state interests discussed here are not jeopardized by the di*996rect mailing of professional cards or announcements to prospective clients, nor, we suppose, by the direct mailing of information in some other forms. Koffler v. Joint Bar Association, 51 N.Y.2d 140, 432 N.Y. S.2d 872, 412 N.E.2d 927 (1980). Consequently, we strike the words “direct mail” from proposed DR 2-101(H), and adopt the balance of the subsection as proposed.
In order to obtain the needed reconsideration of the whole subject of direct mail advertising in light of R— M. J— and the other cases cited below, we remand this question to the Board of Bar Commissioners with the direction that they re-submit revised rules on the subject of direct mail advertising, including the circulation of professional cards and announcements. See In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893, 56 L.Ed.2d 417 (1978); Eaton v. Supreme Court of Arkansas, 270 Ark. 573, 607 S.W.2d 55 (1980); Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 933 (1978); Allison v. Louisiana State Bar Association, La., 362 So.2d 489 (1978); In re Appert, Minn., 315 N.W.2d 204 (1981); Koffler v. Joint Bar Association, supra; In re Greene, 78 A.D.2d 131, 433 N.Y.S.2d 853 (1980); Bishop v. Committee on Professional Ethics, 521 F.Supp. at 1230-32.1 See generally, L. Andrews, “Lawyer Advertising and the First Amendment,” 1981 A.B.F.ResJ. 967. Pending our adoption of rules on that subject, the circulation of professional cards and announcements to prospective clients is permissible, subject to the provisions of Rule DR 2-101, but other direct mail advertising is prohibited.
VII.
The provisions of DR 2-102(A) and (C) through (F), DR 2-103, DR 2-104, DR 2-105, and DR 2-106 are appropriate and necessary to effectuate the substantial state interests identified above. These rules are adopted as proposed.2
VIII.
Referring to the prohibition in the first sentence of DR 2-102(B) against practicing law “under a trade name,” 3 the objector contends that there is no rational basis in terms of misleading the public for prohibiting the practice of law under a name like “Salt Lake Legal Clinic” when the rule permits law firms to practice law under the names of partners long deceased. The use of trade names was permitted in In re Conduct of Shannon, Or., 638 P.2d 482 (1982), and Jacoby v. State Bar, 19 Cal.3d 359, 138 Cal.Rptr. 77, 562 P.2d 1326, 1331 (1977). There is support for the constitutionality of rules prohibiting the use of trade names in the practice of a profession. Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 887, 59 L.Ed.2d 100 (1979) (optometry); In re Oldtowne Legal Clinic, 285 Md. 132, 400 A.2d 1111 (1979) (law). Be that as it may, as a matter of wise rule-making in the public interest, we think there are substantial reasons to doubt the wisdom of DR 2-102(B)’s flat prohibition against practicing law under a trade name and the soundness of the distinctions by which that rule is *997currently administered.4 While leaving that rule in effect as previously approved, we therefore withhold renewed approval and remand this question to the Board of Bar Commissioners with the direction to submit a revised rule on this subject.
To improve the profession’s service to the public, the subject of advertising of legal services is undergoing great changes. As courts, individual lawyers, and the organized Bar puzzle over the difficult legal, ethical, and practical problems associated with the needed changes, it is gratifying to see the quality of effort being devoted to this task. The changes proposed by the Board of Bar Commissioners and the memoranda and briefs submitted by Bar Counsel and the objector in this matter have been extraordinarily helpful, and the Court expresses its gratitude to all involved.
The Petition of the Utah State Bar is granted. As modified herein, the proposed Disciplinary Rules are adopted, and the subjects of direct mail advertising and practicing law under a trade name are remanded to the Bar for the additional re-submissions identified herein not later than November 1, 1982.

So ordered.

HALL, C. J., and HOWE, J., concur.

. See also American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.2(a) (Final Commission Draft, 1981) (“... a lawyer may advertise services through .. . written communication not involving personal contact.”).

. In connection with DR 2-105(A)(2), we note that the Court has recently approved and promulgated the Attorney Specialization Plan recommended by the Utah State Bar. In re Board of Commissioners, No. 17730 (filed March 5, 1982).

. In terms essentially identical to the Disciplinary Rule adopted by the American Bar Association, DR 2-102(B) begins as follows:
A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or a firm or corporation name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation or professional association may also contain “P.C.” or “P.A.” or similar symbols indicating the nature of the organization, and if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession....

. We note that the latest draft of the American Bar Association’s proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “[a] trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice,” subject to specified exceptions. Rule 7.5(a) (Final Commission Draft 1981). The accompanying Comment states that “use of such names in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading.”