E.g., American Dental Association, Principles of Ethics §14 (1974), reprinted in Encyclopedia of Bioethics (Free Press, New York, N.Y.) (1978) (“A dentist may properly utilize office door lettering and signs provided that their style and text are consistent with the dignity of the profession”).
2.
See, e.g., Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 (American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill.) (1983).
3.
See Principles of Ethics, supra note 1.
4.
421 U.S. 773 (1975).
5.
See, e.g., American Medical Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 638 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1980), aff'd, 455 U.S. 676 (1982) (per curiam) (court split 4–4 in decision). See also United States v. National Soc'y of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). This decision held that a bylaw provision prohibiting competitive bidding would not be saved by a “rule of reason” analysis merely because a profession was involved.
6.
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982).
7.
There are open questions, of course, concerning restrictions in ‘time, place and manner” of advertising and quality advertising, as discussed later in this article.
8.
See, e.g., Va. Code §54-317 (13) (1982) (prohibiting health care professionals from disseminating advertising which is “false, deceptive or misleading, [or which] contains a claim of superiority”). For lawyers, see American Bar Association, Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR2-101 (A) (ABA, Chicago, Ill.) (1980) (prohibiting legal advertising which contains a “false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim”). For physicians, see Current Opinions of the American Medical Association §5.01, (AMA, Chicago, Ill.) (1984).
9.
See, e.g., Va Code §54-317.4 (1982 & Supp. 1983).
10.
See, e.g., Principles of Ethics, supra note 1.
11.
See, e.g., Va Code §54-317(5) (1982); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 91, §160 (Smith-Hurd 1966) (both proscribing an advertisement which claims a cure for a manifestly incurable disease).
12.
421 U.S. 809 (1975).
13.
425 U.S. 748 (1976).
14.
433 U.S. 350 (1977).
15.
In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).
16.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 456 U.S. 447 (1978).
17.
Id. at 449.
18.
In re Primus, supra note 15. at 422.
19.
Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979).
20.
447 U.S. 557 (1980).
21.
Id. at 567–70.
22.
455 U.S. 191. 206–07 (1982).
23.
American Medical Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 638 F.2d 443, 452 (2d Cir. 1980).
24.
Id.
25.
In re R.M.J., supra note 22, at 203.
26.
See, e.g., Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975); Virginia State Board of Pharmacists v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
27.
491 F. Supp. 132 (E.D. La. 1978).
28.
Id. at 137.
29.
Obralik, supra note 16.
30.
Zimmerman v. Office of Grievance Committee, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1981).
31.
Friedman v. Rogers, supra note 19, at 13.
32.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 372 (1977).
33.
See, e.g., Va. Code §54-317.4(D) (1982 & Supp. 1983); Mich Comp. Laws Ann. §333.16244 (1980).
34.
See, e.g., Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356, 372–73 (4th Cir. 1979); Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR7-107 (1980).
35.
American Bar Association, Fair Trial and Free Press §1.1 (1978) reprinted in American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice (ABA, Chicago, Ill.) (2d ed.1984).
