## Facts

- Richard D. Shapero, a Kentucky lawyer, sought prior approval to send a direct-mail solicitation letter to people identified through public records as defendants in foreclosure actions.
- The proposed letter warned recipients they “may be about to lose your home,” referenced possible relief under federal law, and offered “FREE information” if they contacted his office.
- The Kentucky Attorneys Advertising Commission found the letter not false or misleading but denied approval under a rule barring written advertisements triggered by a specific event involving the addressee.
- Shapero requested an advisory ethics opinion; the Kentucky Bar Association’s Ethics Committee concluded the letter could be prohibited.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court replaced the original rule with a new rule that still prohibited targeted direct-mail solicitation for pecuniary gain absent a particularized finding of falsity or deception and affirmed that Shapero’s letter could be banned.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to categorically prohibit lawyers from sending truthful, nondeceptive targeted direct-mail solicitation letters for pecuniary gain to persons known to face specific legal problems.

## Decision

- The Court held that a state may not categorically prohibit lawyers from soliciting business for pecuniary gain by sending truthful and nondeceptive letters to potential clients known to face particular legal problems.
- Targeted direct-mail solicitation is protected commercial speech; a blanket prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to Shapero’s proposed letter.
- The Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyer direct-mail solicitation is commercial speech protected by the First Amendment and subject to intermediate scrutiny under the commercial-speech framework.
- When the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, the state must show a substantial interest and a regulation that directly advances that interest through means not more extensive than necessary.
- A categorical ban on truthful, nonmisleading targeted direct-mail solicitation is overbroad where asserted interests (e.g., preventing overreaching, undue influence, or privacy invasion) can be addressed by narrower measures.
- Written solicitations do not present the same coercive risks as in-person solicitation because recipients can ignore, discard, or consider a letter without immediate pressure.
- The targeted nature or efficiency of the communication, standing alone, does not make it inherently misleading or justify suppressing the method of communication.
- States may address deception or abuse through tailored regulation, including discipline for misleading communications or prior review mechanisms, rather than banning an entire category of truthful written solicitations.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Kentucky’s categorical prohibition on truthful, nondeceptive targeted direct-mail solicitation by lawyers for pecuniary gain, holding that the First Amendment requires regulation to be tailored to address concrete risks without broadly suppressing protected commercial speech.


Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988)