Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State Bar
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2241, 12 L. Ed. 2d 89, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's power to regulate the legal profession cannot prohibit a group's collective activity of advising its members to seek legal counsel and recommending specific, competent attorneys, as such activity is a form of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts:
- The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (Brotherhood), a fraternal society, was founded in 1883 to promote the welfare of trainmen in a hazardous profession.
- The Brotherhood was instrumental in the passage of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which allowed injured railroad workers to recover damages.
- To protect its members from persuasive railroad claims adjusters and incompetent or unscrupulous lawyers, the Brotherhood established a Department of Legal Counsel.
- This department selected one law firm in each of its sixteen regions, based on reputation and skill, to handle FELA cases for its members.
- When a member was injured or killed, a local Brotherhood official would advise the member or their family to consult a lawyer before settling and would recommend the Brotherhood's pre-selected regional counsel.
- This plan resulted in channeling a substantial portion of the members' personal injury claims to the lawyers chosen by the Brotherhood.
Procedural Posture:
- The Virginia State Bar filed suit against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in the Chancery Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia (a state trial court).
- The Bar sought an injunction to stop the Brotherhood's lawyer-recommendation plan, alleging it constituted illegal solicitation and the unauthorized practice of law.
- The Chancery Court found that the plan channeled legal employment and issued an injunction against the Brotherhood.
- The Brotherhood appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (the state's highest court), arguing the injunction violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia summarily affirmed the trial court's injunction.
- The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court injunction that prohibits a railroad workers' union from recommending specific, pre-selected attorneys to its injured members, as part of a plan to help them secure legal representation, violate the members' rights to freedom of speech, petition, and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the injunction violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional rights to free speech, petition, and assembly give workers the right to associate and advise one another in asserting their legal rights, and recommending a specific, competent lawyer is an inseparable part of that protected activity. The state cannot, under the guise of regulating the legal profession, infringe upon the right of individuals to associate and assist one another in gaining meaningful access to the courts. Citing NAACP v. Button, the Court found that Virginia failed to show a substantial regulatory interest or substantive evil that would justify such a broad prohibition on the Brotherhood's plan, which is not 'ambulance chasing' but a form of collective action to secure rights granted by Congress.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the injunction does not violate the Constitution. This activity is not a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment, but rather a commercial enterprise for channeling personal injury litigation, which states have a strong and long-recognized power to regulate. Unlike NAACP v. Button, which involved securing constitutionally protected civil rights, this case involves private damage claims. The majority's decision overthrows state regulation of the legal profession, relegates the practice of law to a commercial enterprise, and ignores the potential for abuse inherent in a system where a union controls the selection of attorneys and funnels cases to them.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the concept of associational rights under the First Amendment, extending the protections recognized in the civil rights context of NAACP v. Button to collective action for economic and personal benefit. It established that group legal service plans, where an organization assists its members in obtaining legal representation, are constitutionally protected. This ruling paved the way for the growth of union-sponsored legal plans and other forms of group legal services, challenging traditional state bar restrictions on solicitation. The case affirms that the right of access to courts includes the right to organize collectively to make that access meaningful.
