Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Ohralik_v._Ohio_State_Bar_Assn.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
xsd:integer
68044489
xsd:integer
1033431272
xsd:integer
76
rdf:langString
Stewart, White, Burger, Blackmun, Stevens
<second>
172800.0
xsd:integer
447
xsd:integer
436
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-16
xsd:integer
1978
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-30
xsd:integer
1978
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
rdf:langString
Professional ethics rules for the legal profession that ban in-person solicitation of clients do not violate the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
rdf:langString
Powell
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn, 436 US 447 at 457
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447 at 476
rdf:langString
. . .these concededly legitimate interests might well be served by more specific and less restrictive rules than a total ban on pecuniary solicitation. For example, the Justice Department has suggested that the disciplinary rules be reworded "so as to permit all solicitation and advertising except the kinds that are false, misleading, undignified, or champertous."
rdf:langString
The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decisionmaking; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual. The admonition that "the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones" is of little value when the circumstances provide no opportunity for any remedy at all.
rdf:langString
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Brennan
xsd:integer
1978
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10228