Court Opinion

ID: 9849071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:34:16.067564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:59.745391
License: Public Domain

*654UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I had thought our rules constituted a reasonable compromise between unrestricted lawyer advertising and the maintenance of the dignity of the profession of law, so as to satisfy the First Amendment as construed in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 87 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977). But the United States Supreme Court has now remanded the present case to us for reconsideration in light of Zau-derer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. -, 105 S,Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). While Zauderer did not involve the electronic media, the Supreme Court must have believed it has relevancy to the present case.
In reconsidering this case, our duty is to try to anticipate the Supreme Court’s opinion on it or on a case like it, in light of Zauderer. Upon closely reading Zauderer, I have the impression that the Court takes quite a broad view of constitutionally protected lawyer advertising. I therefore reluctantly conclude that the rules which defendants challenge cannot stand. Hence I would dissolve the temporary injunction and would restrain enforcement of those rules.