## Facts

- Philip Q. Zauderer, an Ohio attorney, ran newspaper advertisements to attract clients.
- One advertisement offered representation in drunk-driving cases and stated that the firm’s “full legal fee [would be] refunded” if the client was convicted of drunk driving.
- Another advertisement sought clients allegedly injured by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device; it included a line drawing of the device, stated Zauderer handled such lawsuits, and said matters were handled on a contingent-fee basis: “If there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients.”
- The Dalkon Shield advertisement generated 106 clients.
- Ohio disciplinary authorities charged that the advertisements violated state professional rules, including claims that the drunk-driving ad was deceptive and that the Dalkon Shield ad improperly used an illustration, constituted improper solicitation, and was deceptive for failing to disclose that clients could still be responsible for litigation costs even if no recovery occurred.
- The Ohio disciplinary board found violations and recommended discipline; the Supreme Court of Ohio largely upheld the findings.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the discipline imposed for the advertising and reversed in substantial part.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may restrict truthful, non-misleading attorney advertising based on concerns about taste, dignity, solicitation, or encouraging litigation.
2. Whether a state may impose a blanket prohibition on illustrations in attorney advertisements.
3. Whether a state may compel factual disclosures in attorney advertisements—specifically, disclosure that clients may be liable for costs even if there is no recovery on a contingent-fee representation—and what First Amendment standard applies.

## Decision

- The Court held that attorney advertising is commercial speech entitled to First Amendment protection, though less than noncommercial speech.
- The Court rejected broad restrictions on truthful, non-misleading attorney advertising justified by generalized concerns about professionalism, “self-recommendation,” or litigation incentives.
- The Court invalidated Ohio’s across-the-board ban on illustrations in attorney advertising because the state offered unsupported assertions rather than evidence that illustrations are inherently misleading, and the ban was more extensive than necessary.
- The Court upheld Ohio’s requirement that contingent-fee advertisements disclose that clients may still be responsible for litigation costs, reasoning that the mandated statement was factual and aimed at preventing consumer deception.

## Legal Principles

- Truthful, non-misleading commercial speech may be restricted only if the regulation directly advances a substantial governmental interest and is not more extensive than necessary.
- States may not prohibit truthful attorney advertising solely because it is viewed as undignified, in poor taste, or likely to increase litigation.
- Blanket bans on a common advertising technique (such as illustrations) require more than speculation; the state must justify the restriction as appropriately tailored to preventing deception or other substantial interests.
- A government may compel disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial” information about the terms of a commercial offer when the requirement is reasonably related to preventing consumer deception, and the speaker’s interest in withholding that information is comparatively limited.

## Conclusion

The Court protected truthful lawyer advertising from broad, unsupported restrictions, struck down a categorical ban on illustrations, and approved compelled disclosure of factual, uncontroversial information reasonably aimed at preventing consumer deception, including disclosure that clients may owe litigation costs even when a contingent-fee case yields no recovery.


Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Sup. Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985)