Did Five Supreme Court Justices Go "Completely Bonkers"?: Saul Goodman, Legal Advertising, and the First Amendment Since Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

Authors

Eric T. Kasper, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Troy A. Kozma, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County

Abstract

In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protection of the freedom of speech extends to truthful advertising of attorneys' services. The ruling set aside decades of ethics rules that had prohibited lawyers from engaging in this type of marketing that bar associations had deemed predatory and beneath the stature of the profession. Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul is a pop culture representation of what legal advertising has become, both reflecting and shaping public perception of legal commercial publicity. But are Saul's advertisements constitutionally protected? This Article uses Saul Goodman 's actions as illustrative examples-comparing them to the Bates decision and other Court rulings on First Amendment protections for legal ads-to explore the philosophical underpinnings of protecting commercial speech. With the growing sophistication of data mining, this review offers an opportunity to consider ifa reexamination of these rulings is warranted.

Disciplines

Commercial Law | Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law | First Amendment | Law | Legal Profession | Marketing Law

Recommended Citation

Eric T. Kasper & Troy A. Kozma, Did Five Supreme Court Justices Go "Completely Bonkers"?: Saul Goodman, Legal Advertising, and the First Amendment Since Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 37 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 337 (2019).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cardozoaelj/vol37/iss2/4