## Facts

- Daniel Barton was a California attorney subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted and enforced through the State Bar and the California Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over attorney discipline.
- Barton placed a newspaper advertisement offering his services as an attorney, intended to attract clients and generate legal employment.
- The State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging the advertisement violated Rule 2, which prohibited soliciting professional employment by advertisement.
- Barton contested the charge by attacking Rule 2 as unreasonable, arguing lawyers operated in a competitive environment and should be permitted to advertise like other businesses.
- The disciplinary matter reached the California Supreme Court, which reviewed the validity and reasonableness of Rule 2 and whether discipline could be imposed for its violation.

## Issues

1. Whether a rule prohibiting attorneys from soliciting legal employment through newspaper advertising is a valid and reasonable regulation of professional conduct.
2. Whether an attorney may be disciplined for placing a newspaper advertisement offering legal services when such advertising is treated as solicitation barred by professional rules.
3. Whether the practice of law may be regulated differently from ordinary commercial businesses for purposes of restricting advertising and solicitation.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court upheld Rule 2 as a valid and reasonable professional regulation.
- The court approved discipline against Barton for violating the rule by publishing a newspaper advertisement offering legal services.
- The court rejected Barton’s argument that competitive or “modern” business conditions made the advertising ban unfair or improper.

## Legal Principles

- The practice of law is regulated as a profession, not treated as an ordinary business, and may be subject to ethical restrictions that limit solicitation methods used in commerce.
- A state bar, with court oversight, may prohibit lawyers from soliciting professional employment through public advertising, including paid newspaper advertisements.
- Lawyer advertising may be treated as solicitation whose restriction is justified to preserve professional dignity and maintain public confidence in the legal profession.
- Rules of professional conduct may regulate attorney behavior beyond fraudulent or criminal acts, including conduct viewed as degrading to the profession’s reputation and standards.
- Courts may defer to bar rules on professional ethics when they serve recognized regulatory purposes and are applied in disciplinary proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a categorical prohibition on attorneys’ solicitation of legal work through newspaper advertising and confirmed that violating such a rule could support professional discipline, reasoning that the legal profession may be held to standards distinct from ordinary commercial competition to protect public confidence and professional dignity.


Barton v. State Bar of Cal., 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818 (Cal. 1930)