Court Opinion

ID: 9849072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:34:16.071262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:59.766089
License: Public Domain

LARSON, Justice
(dissenting).
A doctor turns from an x-ray viewer and faces his television audience. His nurse is at his side. The doctor says he has “see[n] firsthand, injuries caused by the neglect of others,” and, if the viewer has suffered such an injury, he “should be talking to a lawyer.”
The scene immediately switches to an office, presumably that of a lawyer. A background voice says:
If you’re injured through the negligence of others, call the law firm of Humphrey, Haas and Gritzner. Cases involving auto accidents, work comp [sic], serious personal injuries and wrongful death handled on a percentage basis. No charge for the initial consultation. Call now at 288-0102.
In a separate episode, a print-shop employee turns off a noisy machine in the background to tell the television viewer that “I suffered loss of wages, incurred staggering medical bills, and endured pain and suffering, all through the negligence of others.” He says, however, that he had made a mistake by failing to see a lawyer. The camera then switches to the law office scene and the same information is given about the Humphrey and Haas firm.
These are two of the three television commercials involved in this case. In the third, a bowling alley scene, two team members note they are one man short, because “he was injured through the negligence of others.” They agree that the teammate should talk to a lawyer and that the choice of a lawyer “will be important.” The scene then shifts to the office scene and the Humphrey and Haas “pitch.”
While these commercials could be characterized as dull by today’s standards, or “class B in quality,” according to one witness, there is still too much pizazz in them for the Iowa rules. The doctor in the x-ray scene is not a doctor at all. He is an actor. So is his nurse. Perhaps the x-ray being examined is not even a real x-ray. The commercial is a dramatization, and that violates our rules. The “printer” commercial compounds the dramatization violation by adding the noice of the printing press, a “background sound,” which is also prohibited. The bowling commercial violates the rules for several reasons: It is a dramatization, there is background sound (bowling noises), and there are two voices instead of one, which is the limit under the rules. Moreover, the commercials make “laudatory statements” about Humphrey and Haas, according to the Committee.
The majority, in its original opinion, concluded that such techniques “would manipulate the viewer’s mind and will” and we must protect the viewer by prohibiting such tactics altogether. See Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d 565, 571 (Iowa 1984). I believe every Supreme Court case *655from Bates through Zauderer refutes that conclusion.
While the scenes are brief, about thirty seconds each, they convey important information to viewers. First, the commercials say that, if a person is injured by another, the law might provide a remedy. (Testimony in this case, based on studies for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Advertising, showed that a significant percentage of people are unaware of this seemingly self-evident fact.)1 The commercials also provide information on contacting a law firm and on the costs for certain cases, areas also shown to be unfamiliar to many people.
The potential for these “slice of life” commercials to inform the public about other general matters, such as consumers’ rights; the need for a will; or the need for legal representation in various contract relationships, such as house purchases, is almost unlimited. General information about statutes of limitations and other problems arising out of a claimant’s inaction might prevent the loss of an otherwise valid claim.
Despite the need for this kind of information, it may not be included in a television commercial in Iowa, because DR2-101(B) does not permit it. That rule allows twenty categories of information, largely relating to the lawyer’s background and qualifications, but prohibits dissemination of general information about the rights and needs of the viewer. Amazingly, the majority approves the suppression of such information on the theory it is necessary to prevent the viewer from being “misled.” To television viewers lacking information about the system, basic knowledge of their legal rights remains classified information.
To summarize the disciplinary rules involved, rule 2-101(A) prohibits all “appeals to the emotions,” even though all of the experts testifying in this case agreed that all advertising is an appeal to some kind of emotion. Rule 2-101(A) also prohibits advertising which appeals to the “likes or dislikes of a person,” whatever that means. Additionally, this rule provides that no information may be conveyed by any form of advertising except that contained in the “laundry list” of rule 2-101(B). Rule 2-101(B) allows television dissemination of the laundry-list items but restricts the techniques by limiting advertising to “words and numbers only, articulated by a single nondramatic voice, not that of the lawyer, and with no other background sound.” The cumulative effect of these rules is to constrict the flow of information in a manner unparalleled by any other jurisdiction.2
I. The Central Hudson Test.
Any first amendment challenge to restrictions on commercial speech must involve an application of the four-part test of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2351, 65 L.Ed.2d 341, 351 (1980). See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Council, 471 U.S. -, -, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 2275, 85 L.Ed.2d 652, 663-64 (1985); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 203, 102 S.Ct. 929, 937, 71 L.Ed.2d 64, 74 (1982).
The majority in the original opinion in the present case acknowledged that the *656Central Hudson test should be applied even though, I contend, it did not actually apply it. See Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 568. In the present opinion, the majority does not even acknowledge the Central Hudson test.
Under this test, the initial question is whether the advertisements in question are misleading or concern an illegal activity, in which case the state may prohibit them altogether. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. at 2351, 65 L.Ed.2d at 351. If the advertisements are not subject to outright prohibition, the state may restrict them only if all of the following tests are met: (1) the governmental interest in the restrictions is substantial; (2) the restrictions directly advance that governmental interest; and (3) the restrictions are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. Id.
In applying the Central Hudson test to this case, the threshold issue is whether the commercials are actually misleading or deceptive. All of the witnesses testifying at the hearing, including those called by the committee, agreed that the advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. The majority concedes that point. Moreover, the witnesses agreed that there is nothing inherently deceptive or misleading in dramatizations, illustrations, background sound, or music. In fact, in evidence introduced by the commission, one expert testified that “if you do not use motion in a television commercial, you get no audience. People don’t pay attention to it.”
Despite the consistent recognition by the Supreme Court that Central Hudson is the controlling test, the majority announces its own rule, one which I believe is a perversion of- the Central Hudson test:
Without suggesting that the advertisements here were deceitful, we do agree with the committee that, in the medium defendants chose [television], the public could well be misled by them. We think the situation is exactly what the United States supreme court had in mind when it referred to the “special problems” in electronic media advertising. We think the challenged rule falls clearly within the area left to us by the Bates opinion.
Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 570 (emphasis added). The holding of the majority in the original opinion, and here, is that, because Bates, R.M.J., and Zauderer all involved print media, they are distinguishable. Because of this fact, it holds, our court is free to fashion a new test based on the possibility of deception.
This is the language of Bates which the majority relies on:
As with other varieties of speech, it follows as well that there may be reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of advertising. Advertising concerning transactions that are themselves illegal obviously may be suppressed. And the special problems of advertising on the electronic broadcast media will warrant special consideration. Cf. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F.Supp. 582 (D.C.1971), aff’d sub nom Capitol Broadcasting Co. v. Acting Attorney General, 405 U.S. 1000, 92 S.Ct. 1289, 31 L.Ed.2d 472 (1972).
Bates, 433 U.S. 350, 384, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810, 836 (1977) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
What does the emphasized language mean? It is possible the Supreme Court had in mind potential problems in enforcement arising out of the transitory nature of electronic advertising. This, of course, could be minimized by requiring copies of a telecast or broadcast to be kept for a specified period of time. This is the rule of several states, and the rule of the American Bar’s commission on advertising, Model Rule 7.2. It is perhaps more likely that the Supreme Court was simply not willing to address a matter not specifically before it.
At any rate, I do not believe this language from Bates was intended to be used as a license to single out the medium of television for application of substantially different rules, or to accord it any less protection under the first amendment. In my prior dissent, I discussed this Bates language and the effect of Capitol Broadcasting cited therein. I merely incorporate *657that discussion here. See Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 573 (Larson, J., dissenting).
A prophylactic rule, aimed at preventing possible abuses in some cases by imposing a ban for all cases, has been rejected by the Supreme Court. See Zauderer, 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 2278, 85 L.Ed.2d at 668. The present case presents a classic example of such a rule: These commercials are admittedly not misleading or deceptive, yet they are to be banned because, under other circumstances in other cases, similar techniques and content might mislead someone.
The majority rationalizes this result on the ground that the state has a substantial interest at stake in “fostering rational, intelligent, and voluntary decision-making in determining the need for legal services and selecting a lawyer.” Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 571 (“We think the rule [restricting techniques and content] advances the state interest by aiding the citizen in making an intelligent selection of counsel.”). In other words, the majority reasons, the public cannot make an informed decision unless the state sifts out the information to be disseminated to it. This approach, characterized by the Supreme Court as “paternalistic,” has also been expressly rejected by it. See Bates, 433 U.S. at 365, 97 S.Ct. at 2699, 53 L.Ed.2d at 824.
In Bates, as here, it was argued that allowing too much information could be harmful to the consumer. Bates noted that similar arguments had been made in an earlier case, Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Counsel, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). It said:
[W]e observed [in Virginia Pharmacy] that “on close inspection it is seen that the State’s protectiveness of its citizens rests in large measure on the advantages of their being kept in ignorance.” But we noted the presence of a potent 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 the channels of communication rather than to close them.” The choice between the dangers of suppressing information and the dangers arising from its free flow was seen as precisely the choice “that the First Amendment makes for us.”
Bates, 433 U.S. at 365, 97 S.Ct. at 2699-2700, 53 L.Ed.2d at 824 (citations omitted).
Even if it were established that the state has a substantial interest in preventing abuses by enactment of such regulatory measures, there is a further requirement: The state must show that the regulations are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. at 2351, 65 L.Ed.2d at 351. How does the majority deal with this element? By simply declaring it inapplicable; these rules do not restrict dissemination of information, the majority says, they only restrict some tools:
We reject defendants’ contention that the prohibition against background sound, visual displays, multiple dramatic statements, and self-laudatory statements is more extensive than necessary to serve the state interests. All that is prohibited are the tools which would manipulate the viewer’s mind and will.
Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 571 (emphasis added.)
The least-restrictive-alternative argument, I believe, cannot be disposed of so summarily. The Iowa rules do not merely regulate “tools” of communication; they have a virtual stranglehold on lawyer advertising. By stringent control of techniques and content, they directly affect the dissemination of information to the public. The present case, in fact, is a good example of their effect. In this case, there is no evidence by the committee that a less restrictive method would not be effective.
The goal of regulation is to prevent fraud and deception in advertising. See Bates, 433 U.S. at 383, 97 S.Ct. at 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d at 835. To accomplish that goal, there are other, less restrictive, alternatives to an outright ban on techniques and content. The most obvious, of course, is to *658simply prohibit false and misleading advertising. This is the rule in at least twenty-six states and the rule adopted by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards. See, Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 and 7.2 (1983). Any abuses could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is the less restrictive alternative suggested by the Supreme Court in Zauderer. See 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 2281, 85 L.Ed.2d at 671 (“Given the possibility of policing the use of illustrations in advertising on a case-by-case basis, the prophylactic approach taken by Ohio cannot stand
The record in this case, moreover, showed that less restrictive alternatives are effective to prevent abuses. Most other states have rules which are less restrictive, rules which permit the techniques and content barred by ours. Yet, according to the testimony of the former staff director of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Advertising, no problems have arisen under those less stringent rules. I think it is clear, based on that fact alone, that the suppressive regulations of our own rules are not necessary in order to prevent abuse.
I wish the majority of our court had the same degree of confidence in the bar expressed by the Supreme Court in Bates, when it said:
We suspect that, with advertising, most lawyers will behave as they always have: They will abide by their solemn oaths to uphold the integrity and honor of their profession and of the legal system. For every attorney who overreaches through advertising, there will be thousands of others who will be candid and honest and straightforward. And, of course, it will be in the latter’s interest, as in other cases of misconduct at the bar, to assist in weeding out those few who abuse their trust.
Bates, 433 U.S. at 379, 97 S.Ct. at 2707, 53 L.Ed.2d at 833.
II. The Effect of Zauderer.
The Supreme Court vacated the original majority opinion in this case and remanded it for consideration in light of Zauderer. As already observed, the majority responds by simply saying Zauderer has no application, because it involved print media. I believe Zauderer is applicable to this case for several reasons: First, it reaffirms the Supreme Court’s view that prophylactic rules cannot be imposed to restrict lawyer advertising when less restrictive means are available. Second, Zauderer downplayed any distinctions between lawyers’ advertising and others’. It said:
In short, assessment of the validity of legal advice and information contained in attorneys’ advertising is not necessarily a matter of great complexity; nor is assessing the accuracy or capacity to deceive of other forms of advertising the simple process the State makes it out to be. The qualitative distinction the State has attempted to draw eludes us....
... Prophylactic restraints that would be unacceptable as applied to commercial advertising generally are therefore equally unacceptable as applied to appellant’s advertising.
Zauderer, 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 2279-80, 85 L.Ed.2d at 669-70.
Last, Zauderer is relevant to television advertising, because it emphasizes the underlying rationale for allowing lawyer advertising in the first place. That is the need of the public for more information concerning their rights under the law.
The Supreme Court in Bates observed: As the bar acknowledges, “the middle 70% of our population is not being reached or served adequately by the legal profession.” Among the reasons for this underutilization is fear of the cost, and an inability to locate a suitable lawyer .... Advertising can help to solve this acknowledged problem: Advertising is the traditional mechanism in a free-market economy for a supplier to inform a potential purchaser of the availability and terms of exchange.
*659Bates, 433 U.S. at 376, 97 S.Ct. at 2705, 53 L.Ed.2d at 831 (citation omitted). This concern was reaffirmed in Zauderer:
Our recent decisions involving commercial speech have been grounded in the faith that the free flow of commercial information is valuable enough to justify imposing on would-be regulators the costs of distinguishing the truthful from the false, the helpful from the misleading, and the harmless from the harmful.
Zauderer, 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 2279-80, 85 L.Ed.2d at 669.
While it is true, as Justice O’Connor points out in her dissent, that Zauderer did not actually involve electronic media, I believe the first amendment principles it recognizes nevertheless apply here. Its holding that (1) case-by-case disciplinary proceedings, as a less restrictive alternative, must be used in preference to a blanket ban; (2) its recognition that rules governing commercial advertising generally should apply to lawyer advertising; and (3) its reaffirmance of the need for a fully informed public, are as relevant to television advertising as they are to any other medium.
I think it is especially important to foster the use of television, because of its great potential for informing the public. The American Bar Association’s Task Force on Lawyer Advertising, in studying the area of lawyer advertising, noted that applying more restrictive rules to television would adversely affect marginally literate persons and those who do not read print media for other reasons. The Commission observed:
A 1975 report by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare indicates that approximately one-fifth of the adults in this nation are functionally incompetent in basic skills, including reading skills. A 1976 Roper Survey indicates that a large majority of the American public obtain information about current affairs from radio and television, rather than newspapers.
ABA Code of Professional Responsibility Amendments, Task Force on Lawyer Advertising, Report to the Board of Governors, 46 U.S.L.W. 1, 2 (August 23, 1977).
The American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards rejected the notion that different rules should be adopted for television. The Commission in its comment noted:
Television is now one of the most powerful media for getting information to the public, particularly persons of low and moderate income; prohibiting television advertising, therefore, would impede the flow of information about legal services to many sectors of the public. Limiting the information that may be advertised [by television] has a similar effect and assumes that the bar can accurately forecast the kind of information that the public would regard as relevant.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.2 (1983) (Commission comment) (emphasis added).
The need for increased public understanding of the legal system, and the potential of television to fill that need, is borne out in a report made to this court in 1981 by the Iowa Judicial Coordinating Committee. The report began with this observation:
“The judiciary is the least understood of the three branches of government, yet it does the least to assist the public and the news media in truly understanding the function of the judicial process.” Since the turn of the century, the responsibility, power, and authority of the courts has expanded at a rapid pace, with the courts becoming perhaps the most powerful and persuasive governmental force in this country. Issues presented to and decided by the courts touch on all parts of the citizens’ lives. Despite the importance of these issues and the effect of court decisions on citizens, the public has a very limited understanding and comprehension of the legal system.
Public Opinion Survey: The Iowa Court System, 1 (Judicial Coordinating Committee, Iowa Supreme Court, 1981) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
Central to this report was a survey of Iowans concerning the extent and sources *660of their knowledge of the legal system. There is an interesting statistic included in that survey. In response to the question, “From what source have you learned the most about Iowa courts?”, nineteen percent said school or formal instruction. Id. at 23. Almost as many, eighteen percent, said it was from television. Thirty-nine percent said it was from newspapers. Id. The Iowa report also cited a national survey which showed that in fact more people gained information from television than from newspapers. Id. at 25.
I believe dissemination of useful information and the attendant elimination of some of the mystique surrounding the legal process would not only provide valuable information to the viewer, it would in fact enhance the image of the legal profession. More significantly, rules which would permit this would comply with the first amendment.
I would dissolve the temporary injunction and restrain the enforcement of these rules.3
McCORMICK, J., joins this dissent.

. Evidence in the hearing in this case included the results of an American Bar Association-American Bar Foundation joint study, which revealed: Over one-third of the persons interviewed had never used a lawyer. Of these, eighty-three percent said they did not know how to contact one. Thirty percent of those persons injured through the negligence of others did not pursue a remedy. Among the reasons given for this were (1) they could not identify the legal problems because of the lack of information; (2) they felt attorneys were inaccessible; and (3) they felt intimidated by lawyers.

. Testimony at the hearing established that at least forty-four states permit legal advertisements which use dramatization and graphics; at least forty-three permit background music, actors, and personal appearances, while only one state other than Iowa limits the number of voices involved. It further established that at least twenty-six states require that advertisements be dignified and twenty-one states allow legal advertising limited only by the requirement that they not be false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. The latter is the approach in the American Bar Association’s present Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 and 7.2.

. Zauderer held that advertising rules could require an attorney advertising a contingent fee to state, in the advertisement, that the client might be liable for certain costs, even if the client lost the case. Humphrey and Haas concede this holding would cause problems with their commercials, which did not contain such a statement. On this issue, Zauderer is distinguishable because, in that case, the advertisement said there would be "no charge” if the client lost, while the Humphrey and Haas commercials involved here made no such statement. In any event, these defendants chose not to argue that issue.