In re R. M. J.
455 U.S. 191 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
States may regulate lawyer advertising that is inherently misleading or has proven to be deceptive, but they cannot place an absolute prohibition on potentially misleading information if the information can be presented in a way that is not deceptive. Any restrictions on truthful, non-deceptive commercial speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial state interest.
Facts:
- R.M.J., a lawyer admitted to the Missouri and Illinois Bars, began a solo practice in St. Louis in 1977.
- To announce his new office, he mailed professional announcement cards to a general audience, beyond the limited group of 'lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends, and relatives' permitted by Missouri's ethics rule (Rule 4).
- R.M.J. also placed advertisements in local newspapers and the yellow pages of the telephone directory.
- These advertisements contained information not explicitly permitted by Rule 4, including the fact that he was licensed in both Missouri and Illinois.
- The ads prominently stated in large capital letters that R.M.J. was 'Admitted to Practice Before THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.'
- His ads also listed areas of practice using terms that deviated from the state's mandatory, pre-approved list (e.g., 'personal injury' instead of 'tort law') and included unlisted areas such as 'contracts'.
- Two of his three advertisements failed to include a required disclaimer stating that listing practice areas does not indicate certification of expertise.
Procedural Posture:
- The Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri filed an information in that court charging appellant R.M.J. with unprofessional conduct for violating state ethics rules on advertising.
- R.M.J. defended his actions by arguing that the advertising restrictions, with the exception of the disclaimer requirement, were unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri, in a disbarment proceeding, upheld the constitutionality of the advertising rule and issued a private reprimand against R.M.J.
- R.M.J. (appellant) then appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri (appellee) to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Missouri's state bar rules, which strictly limit the content of lawyer advertisements to specific categories and wording and prohibit general mailings of announcement cards, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protections for commercial speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, Missouri's rules restricting the content of lawyer advertising are unconstitutional as applied. Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is protected commercial speech, and while states may regulate misleading advertising, any restrictions must be no broader than reasonably necessary to prevent the deception. For potentially misleading information, the state's remedy should be narrowly tailored, such as requiring disclaimers, rather than imposing an absolute prohibition. Here, the information R.M.J. advertised—including his jurisdictions of admission, areas of practice using common terminology, and membership in the U.S. Supreme Court Bar—was not found to be misleading. Missouri failed to demonstrate a substantial state interest that would be served by absolutely prohibiting this truthful information, especially when less restrictive means were available. The rules were not narrowly drawn and thus unconstitutionally interfered with R.M.J.'s First Amendment rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and reinforces the principles established in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, solidifying protections for truthful commercial speech by attorneys. It curtails the ability of states to impose highly paternalistic and rigid regulations on the content of lawyer advertising. By emphasizing that the preferred remedy for potentially misleading speech is 'more disclosure, rather than less' (e.g., disclaimers), the Court pushed states away from outright prohibitions. This precedent has fostered a more competitive and informative market for legal services by allowing lawyers to communicate their qualifications and practice areas more freely, so long as the information is not false or deceptive.
