Connection lost
Server error
BATES v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a state’s blanket ban on attorney advertising, holding that truthful advertising of routine legal services is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment, thereby allowing lawyers to publicize their prices.
Legal Significance: This landmark case extended First Amendment commercial speech protections to attorney advertising, invalidating absolute state prohibitions and recognizing the public’s right to receive information about the availability and cost of legal services.
BATES v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellants John Bates and Van O’Steen, attorneys licensed in Arizona, opened a ‘legal clinic’ aimed at providing routine legal services at modest fees to individuals of moderate income. To generate sufficient client volume, they placed an advertisement in a local newspaper listing their prices for specific services, such as uncontested divorces, simple adoptions, and name changes. This action was a clear violation of Disciplinary Rule 2-101(B) of the Supreme Court of Arizona, which prohibited attorneys from advertising. The State Bar of Arizona initiated disciplinary proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary rule, rejecting appellants’ claims that the ban violated the Sherman Act and the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the regulation was exempt from the Sherman Act under the state-action doctrine and that attorney advertising was not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, constitutionally prohibit a licensed attorney from advertising truthful information regarding the availability and price of routine legal services?
No. The Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s judgment on the First Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, constitutionally prohibit a licensed attorney from advertising truthful information regarding the availability and price of routine legal services?
Conclusion
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona fundamentally reshaped the legal profession by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commod
Legal Rule
Truthful, non-misleading advertising of routine legal services by attorneys is a form Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis extended the principles of commercial speech established in *Virginia Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state’s blanket ban on truthful attorney advertising for routine services