A. ATTRACTING CLIENTS Modern 1st A. protection for “Commercial Speech”  1976: prohibition against pharmacies advertising prices of prescription drugs (Virginia Pharmacy)  1977: prohibition against lawyer advertising (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona)  Purpose of protection: public interest in receiving useful information about goods and services

Commercial speech c’t’d  1980: Central Hudson Gas & Electric sets limits on protection for commercial speech generally  can forbid promoting unlawful activity  can forbid false/misleading statements  3-part test for other restrictions:  substantial gov’tal interest  restriction directly and materially advances it  restriction is “narrowly drawn”

Problem p. 114  Telephone # LAWSUIT – improper advertising?  MRPC 7.1  Missouri MRPC 7.1  Firm name “The Suit Shop”?  MRPC 7.1, 7.5  n. 5 p. 120  What about referring to one’s selection to “Super Lawyers” or “Best Lawyers of America”?

Problem p. 114 c’t’d  writing directly to persons reported in the newspaper to have been injured in accidents – improper solicitation?  Went For It, p. 114, and n. 1 p. 118  MRPC 7.3  cf. Missouri MRPC 7.3  writing directly to people reported to be arrested – is this different from accidents?  n. 2 p. 119

Solicitation c’t’d  Parameters of constitutional protection for solicitation  Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n (1978) – classic “ambulance-chasing” case, not protected  In re Primus (1978) – a pro bono solicitation case, protected under the particular circumstances  Hence the relationship between MRPC 7.3(a) (pecuniary gain) and 7.3(b) (coercion, duress or harassment)

B. NATURE, ESTABLISHMENT, SCOPE (1) Problem p. 121  Nature of the relationship: “fiduciary” – what does that mean?  What are your obligations, if any, toward Smith, after the initial consult and he can’t find another lawyer?  Have you already “taken his case”? Togstad  If not, must you do so now? N. 6 &7 p. 128  any difference, if the initial consult took place through from the webpage?

Problem p. 121 c’t’d  If Smith files a civil suit pro se, and the judge asks you to represent him, what are your obligations? MRPC 6.1, 6.2  can you refuse because you won’t get a fee?  can you refuse because you don’t like him?  if the judge orders you to do so, are you stuck?  N. 9 p. 129 – constitutional issues?

Problem p. 121 c’t’d  what about question (d) p. 122 – can you refuse to do more than write a letter to the landlord?  MRPC 1.2(c) and n. 11 p. 132  Suppose Smith is charged with assault in municipal court, can’t pay a lawyer but isn’t eligible for a public defender – if the judge asks you to step in, are you stuck?  N. 8 p. 129

B(2) Identifying the Client  Problem p. 133  Who are the Young & Winslow firm’s “clients”?  Do they have professional obligations to anyone else?  Greate Bay Hotel, p. 134  MRPC 1.13 – does this help at all for our problem?  What more do you need to know?

 N. 3 p. 137: insurance defense – who is the client?  the insured?  the insurer who selects and pays the lawyer?  if both, is there a problem?