First Amendment Protection for Solicitation

I have noticed some inaccuracies and confusion in some casebooks and treatises regarding the First Amendment protection accorded to solicitation of clients, including the distinction between Primus and Ohralik.  Here’s an outline.

Summary of Three Levels of First Amendment Protection

I.  Core speech - highest First Amendment protection (Primus)

    Exacting scrutiny
            A. State must show a subordinating interest that is compelling
        B. The regulation must be closely drawn
        C. Overbreadth analysis applies

II.  Commercial speech - Advertising (Bates)

    Intermediate scrutiny (Central Hudson)
            A. State may regulate speech if it shows that it concerns unlawful activity or is misleading
        B. Otherwise, state has burden to show unambiguously
            1. A substantial interest
            2. The regulation directly and materially advances that interest
            3. The regulation is narrowly drawn (O’Connor: “reasonably well-tailored”)
            4. No overbreadth analysis available

III.  Commercial speech - Solicitation (Ohralik)

    Lowest First Amendment protection
            A. State has presumption (rebuttable) that certain evils associated with solicitation are present; this means burden shifts to lawyer to show that the presumed evils were not present, i.e. no
            1. Undue influence
            2. Overreaching
            3. Misrepresentation
            4. Invasion of privacy
            5. Conflict of interest
                (Ohralik lost because he failed to carry this burden.)
        B. No overbreadth analysis available