holding that “the absence of explicit proof or findings of harm or injury [in the case before the court] is immaterial” when the government has an interest in a prophylactic rule designed to prevent harm before it occurs
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the absence of explicit proof or findings of harm or injury [in the case before the court] is immaterial” when the government has an interest in a prophylactic rule designed to prevent harm before it occurs
- holding that the First Amendment does not preclude discipline for an attorney's in-person solicitation of business because of the serious risk of fraud, undue influence, and intimidation inherent in such activity
- finding a strong state interest in maintaining standards among members of its licensed professions and an especially strong interest in regulating lawyers as they are essential to administering justice, and have historically been officers of the courts
- noting that lawyers are “assistants to the court in search of a just solution to disputes.”(citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Me. Justice Rehnquist,
concurring in the judgment.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in In re Primus, ante, p. 440, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.