Attorney Advertising and Commercial Speech after Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

This same sentiment was expressed by the Bates Court in its conclusion of the case: "[W]e recognize that many of the problems in defining the boundary between deceptive and nondeceptive advertising remain to be resolved, and we expect that the bar will have a special role to play in assuring that advertising by attorneys flows both freely and cleanly."Bates, 433 U.S. at 384. 7. See infra notes 108-17 and accompanying text.8. 105 S. Ct. 2265 (1985).9.The facts of the case are taken primarily from the syllabus to the Supreme Court decision in Zauderer, 105 S. Ct. at 2269.10.DR 2-106(C) states in full: "A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case."OHIO CODE OF PROFES-SIONAL RESPONSIELITY DR 2-106(C) (1978).The employee mentioned was concerned, and the ad seemed to suggest, that Zauderer was providing legal services to criminal defendants on a contingent-fee basis.Since the ad provided that Zauderer would refund the client's legal fee if a decision was not reached for the client, the employee felt that this clearly indicated that Zauderer was working on a contingent-fee basis.Zauderer, 105 S. Ct. at 2271. 11.The Dalkon Shield is an intrauterine device (IUD) that was introduced in 1971.Van Dyke, The Dalkon Shield: A "Primer" in IUD Liability, 6 W. ST.L. REV. 1, 1-2 (1978).Marketed as "an IUD of distinctively new design," the product was quickly sold to 2.2 million users.Id. at 2. As early as 1972, women began experiencing complications after using the IUD, including maternal [Vol.21:591