"Because [they] set their prices so as to have a relatively low return on each case they handled, they depended on substantial volume" in order to make the clinic profitable.

[8] The pair asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the proceedings, and specifically contended that the absolute ban on lawyer advertising violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and the First Amendment.

[16] Deputy Solicitor General Daniel M. Friedman argued on behalf of the U.S. government, urging the Court to hold Arizona's ban on attorney advertising unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

[17] As Professor Thomas Morgan has put it, The organized bar traditionally took the position that a lawyer was not permitted to actively publicize his services.

[18] The Court's decision rejected this tradition as a historical anachronism, which created higher barriers to entry into the legal profession and functioned to "perpetuate the market position of established attorneys."

Furthermore, commercial speech serves significant societal interests in that it informs the public of the availability, nature, and prices of products and services, allowing them to act rationally in a free enterprise system.

Nevertheless, the Court in the Virginia pharmacy case expressly reserved judgment on how that same balance might be struck with respect to other professions, as to which different constitutional considerations might come into play.

Nevertheless, the Court did characterize Arizona's ban on lawyer advertising as serving to "inhibit the free flow of information and keep the public in ignorance."

It emphasized the advertisement Bates and O'Steen published was the most basic one possible – listing various services, the prices charged, and an address and telephone number.

And although advertising for legal services is necessarily incomplete — responsible lawyers will, of course, disclaim that all cases are "simple" ones — a rough estimate of the cost is more useful to the public than keeping them in the dark entirely.

Bans on advertising, moreover, are ineffective means of reducing lawyer overhead and of maintaining the quality of legal services provided.

Finally, there was no reason to believe that allowing lawyers to advertise would result in a tidal wave of disingenuous claims for the state bar to investigate and prosecute, as Justice Powell feared would happen.

Powell thought it difficult to enumerate a value for this aspect of legal representation, and hence for consumers to sense how much diagnosis and advice they could expect for a fixed, advertised price.

One unfortunate result of today's decision is that lawyers may feel free to use a wide variety of adjectives — such as 'fair,' 'moderate,' 'low-cost,' or 'lowest in town' — to describe the bargain they offer to the public."