Connection lost
Server error
Hayes v. New York Attorney Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District 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: Attorney challenged New York’s rule requiring a specific disclaimer for specialist claims. The court found parts of the disclaimer unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the rule’s “prominently made” requirement unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Legal Significance: Reinforces First Amendment protections for truthful attorney advertising of specialization, scrutinizing compelled disclaimers and requiring clarity in regulations to avoid unconstitutional vagueness, particularly concerning commercial speech.
Hayes v. New York Attorney Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District 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
J. Michael Hayes, an attorney certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA), an ABA-accredited organization, advertised this certification. New York Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4 (formerly DR 2-105(C)(1)) permitted such advertisement if accompanied by a specific three-part disclaimer, “prominently made.” The disclaimer required stating: (1) the certifying organization is not affiliated with any governmental authority; (2) certification is not required to practice law in New York; and (3) certification does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other experienced attorneys. The New York Attorney Grievance Committee investigated Hayes for his billboard and letterhead advertisements, questioning compliance with the “prominently made” requirement and the necessity of the disclaimer. Hayes filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing Rule 7.4 violated his First Amendment rights and was unconstitutionally vague. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Grievance Committee on the First Amendment claim and, after a bench trial, rejected the as-applied vagueness challenge. Hayes appealed these judgments.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did New York Rule 7.4, by requiring attorneys advertising specialization to include a specific three-part disclaimer “prominently made,” violate the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech or prove unconstitutionally vague as applied to the attorney?
Yes, the second and third components of the disclaimer mandated by Rule 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 v
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
Did New York Rule 7.4, by requiring attorneys advertising specialization to include a specific three-part disclaimer “prominently made,” violate the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech or prove unconstitutionally vague as applied to the attorney?
Conclusion
This decision significantly clarifies the First Amendment limits on state regulation of 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 cupidata
Legal Rule
Attorney advertising is commercial speech subject to the four-part test from *Central 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 laboru
Legal Analysis
The court applied the *Central Hudson* test to evaluate the First Amendment 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 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 des
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- NY’s rule requiring certified attorneys to state that certification isn’t required