PreviousCan a state prevent lawyers from sending letters to victims of accidents or disasters until after a thirty-day waiting period expires? The Court said "yes" in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 2371 (1995). The Court stated:
We believe that the Florida Bar's 30-day restriction on targeted direct-mail solicitation of accident victims and their relatives withstands scrutiny under the three-part Central Hudson test that we have devised for this context. The Bar has substantial interest both in protecting injured Floridians from invasive conduct by lawyers and in preventing the erosion of confidence in the profession that such repeated invasions have engendered. The Bar's proffered study [showing that members of the public view such letters as an invasion of privacy and as adversely affecting their opinions of the lawyers who send them], unrebutted by respondents below, provides evidence indicating that the harms it targets are far from illusory. The palliative devised by the Bar to address these harms is narrow both in scope and in duration. The Constitution, in our view, requires nothing more.
Does Went for It reflect a retrenchment by the Court and a move toward Justice O’Connor’s views, or does it merely reflect an unwillingness to extend the first amendment any further than it has so far? Which is more desirable? More likely? Which view of advertising and solicitation is more consistent with your own views of the profession?
| Previous |