Create a Case Brief.....Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 98 S. Ct. 1912, 56 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1978), the attorney/acquaintance of the family of the injured visited her in the hospital and, over the course of a few days spent talking with her and her family, secured a contingent fee contract to represent her personal injury claim. The injured client fired the attorney a few days after signing the contract. The Court found that while the First Amendment does protect "restrained advertising" to address society's interest in obtaining information about the availability of legal services, each state has a countervailing interest in protecting its citizens against overreaching by attorneys in securing their services. Id. at 455. The Court found that "in-person solicitation of professional employment by a lawyer does not stand on a par with truthful advertising about the availability and terms of routine legal services." Id. Therefore, there is no comparison between the advertisements in Bates, supra, wherein a print adver- tisement set forth standard fees, and the in-person solicitation of business. While both advertise the availability of legal services, there are significant and material differences. Unlike a public advertisement, which simply provides information and leaves the recipient free to act upon it or not, in-person solicitation may exert pressure and often demands an immediate response, without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection. The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decision-making; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual.

In the first, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 98 S. Ct. 1912, 56L. Ed. 2d 444 (1978), the attorney/acquaintance of the family of the injured visited her in the hospital and, over the course of a few days spent talking with her and her family, secured a contingent fee contract to represent her personal injury claim. The injured client fired the attorney a few days after signing the contract. The Court found that while the First Amendment does protect "restrained advertising" to address society's interest in obtaining information about the availability of legal services, each state has a countervailing interest in protecting its citizens against overreaching by attorneys in securing their services. Id. at 455. The Court found that "in-person solicitation of professional employment by a lawyer does not stand on a par with truthful advertising about the availability and terms of routine legal services." Id. Therefore, there is no comparison between the advertisements in Bates, supra, wherein a print adverisement set forth standard fees, and the in-person solicitation of business. While both advertise the availability of legal services, there are significant and material differences. Unlike a public advertisement, which simply provides information and leaves the recipient free to act upon it or not, in-person solicitation may exert pressure and often demands an immediate response, without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection. The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decision-making; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual