Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State Bar
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2241, 377 U.S. 1, 12 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's regulation of the legal profession cannot prohibit a union or other associational group from recommending specific, competent attorneys to its members, as this collective activity to secure meaningful access to the courts is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts:
- The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a union founded to promote the welfare of its members, who work in a hazardous profession.
- To protect injured members from unfair settlements and incompetent lawyers, the Brotherhood established a Department of Legal Counsel.
- The Department selected a specific lawyer or law firm for each of sixteen geographic regions based on their reputation for honesty and skill in railroad personal injury litigation.
- When a member was injured or killed, a local lodge official would visit the member or their family.
- The official would advise them to consult a lawyer before settling their claim and would recommend the specific, pre-approved lawyer for that region.
- This plan resulted in channeling a substantial portion of the members' personal injury claims to the Brotherhood's pre-selected lawyers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Virginia State Bar filed suit against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in the Chancery Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, seeking an injunction.
- The state trial court found the Brotherhood's plan constituted solicitation of legal business and issued an injunction prohibiting it.
- The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen appealed the injunction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia summarily affirmed the trial court's injunction.
- The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States 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 advising its injured members to obtain legal counsel and from recommending specific attorneys violate the members' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech, petition, and assembly?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the injunction violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional rights to free speech, petition, and assembly allow workers to band together to advise and assist one another in asserting their legal rights, which includes recommending competent legal counsel. The state cannot, under the guise of regulating the legal profession, infringe upon this fundamental right of association, especially when the goal is to secure meaningful access to courts for rights granted by federal law, such as the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The Brotherhood's activity is not the 'ambulance chasing' or commercialization of law that the state has a substantial interest in preventing; rather, it is a constitutionally protected form of mutual assistance analogous to the activities upheld in NAACP v. Button.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the injunction does not violate the Constitution and should be upheld. The Court's decision improperly relegates the practice of law to a commercial enterprise and undermines the state's legitimate and long-recognized power to regulate the legal profession. Unlike the political expression protected in NAACP v. Button, this case involves ordinary personal injury litigation, not the advancement of civil rights. The Brotherhood's plan constitutes a gross abuse of channeling and soliciting litigation, with a history of unethical fee-splitting, which the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public from potential evils.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of First Amendment associational rights by extending the principles of NAACP v. Button beyond the context of civil rights litigation to collective action for obtaining legal representation in personal injury cases. It established that group legal service plans, where an organization refers its members to specific attorneys, are a protected form of expression and association. This ruling challenged the traditional, strict state bar prohibitions on lawyer solicitation and channeling, paving the way for the growth of prepaid legal plans and other forms of group legal services by unions, employers, and other organizations.
