Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCommercial SpeechAttorney Advertisingcommercial speechattorney advertisingdirect-mail solicitationCentral Hudson

Facts

Florida Bar rules prohibited lawyers and lawyer referral services from sending targeted written solicitations to personal injury or wrongful death victims, or their relatives, within 30 days after an accident or disaster. The Bar adopted the rules after a 2-year study involving hearings, surveys, and public commentary about lawyer advertising. In this suit, the plaintiffs alleged they had routinely sent such solicitations within the 30-day period and wanted to continue doing so. The Bar defended the rules as protecting the privacy and tranquility of recent accident victims and preserving public confidence in the legal profession.

Issue

Whether Florida's 30-day prohibition on targeted direct-mail solicitation to accident victims and their relatives violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, the question was whether the restriction on this form of attorney commercial speech survives review under the Central Hudson test.

Rule

Truthful, nonmisleading attorney advertising is protected commercial speech, but it may be regulated if the government satisfies Central Hudson. Under that framework, the government must assert a substantial interest, show that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest, and demonstrate a reasonable fit between the ends and the means; in the commercial speech context, the regulation need not be the least restrictive means, but it must be narrowly tailored in scope and proportion to the interest served.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Supreme Court of Ohio adopts a rule barring lawyers from sending targeted letters to people injured in train derailments, and to their immediate families, for 21 days after the event. The court relies on the state's interests in shielding grieving households from intrusive attorney contact and in preventing further damage to public confidence in the bar.

If challenged under the First Amendment, which argument most strongly supports the rule under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. Truthful attorney advertising is protected commercial speech, but it may be regulated under Central Hudson. The majority recognized as substantial both the state's interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of recent accident victims and relatives, and its interest in preventing erosion of confidence in the legal profession caused by intrusive solicitations. The rule does not depend on showing that attorney advertising is wholly unprotected or inherently deceptive.