## Facts

- Florida adopted bar rules barring personal-injury lawyers (and lawyer referral services) from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to accident or disaster victims and their relatives for 30 days after the event.
- Went For It, Inc., a lawyer referral service, and a Florida attorney sought to send immediate targeted letters to injured persons and their relatives, but the rules prohibited such mailings during the blackout period.
- The Florida Bar justified the restriction as protecting the privacy and tranquility of victims and their families and as preventing diminished public confidence in the legal profession.
- The Bar supported the restriction with a two-year public-opinion study, including statistical results, consumer complaints, and anecdotal accounts from recipients who received solicitations shortly after traumatic events.
- Respondents sued in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the rules violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to truthful, nonmisleading lawyer advertising.
- The district court entered summary judgment for respondents, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prohibit lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to accident or disaster victims and their relatives for 30 days after the event.
2. Whether the 30-day restriction on truthful, nonmisleading lawyer advertising satisfies the *Central Hudson* test for regulation of commercial speech.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and upheld the Florida Bar’s 30-day ban.
- The Court treated the mailings as commercial speech and applied *Central Hudson*.
- The Court held the State had substantial interests in protecting the privacy and tranquility of victims and their families and in preventing harm to the profession’s reputation caused by immediate post-accident solicitations.
- The Court concluded the Bar’s evidentiary record (survey data and anecdotal complaints) showed the targeted harms were real and that the restriction directly and materially advanced the stated interests.
- The Court held the rule was sufficiently tailored because it was limited to targeted direct mail, confined to a brief 30-day period, and left open alternative channels for learning about legal services (e.g., general advertising and other sources).

## Legal Principles

- Lawyer advertising that is truthful and not misleading is protected commercial speech, subject to intermediate scrutiny under *Central Hudson*.
- Under *Central Hudson*, the government must show (1) a substantial interest, (2) that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest, and (3) a reasonable fit such that the restriction is not more extensive than necessary.
- A state may rely on empirical and anecdotal evidence to establish that a restriction materially advances its interests; it need not proceed on speculation.
- The First Amendment does not require the least restrictive means for commercial-speech regulations, but it does require reasonable tailoring and preservation of adequate alternative avenues of communication.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Florida’s 30-day prohibition on targeted direct-mail solicitation to accident victims and their relatives, concluding that the rule satisfied *Central Hudson* because it served substantial privacy and professional-reputation interests, materially advanced those interests based on an evidentiary record, and was reasonably tailored in scope and duration.


Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)