Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information. (en)
|
| foaf:name
| - Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Dissent
| |
| docket
| |
| JoinDissent
| - Rehnquist and Scalia (en)
|
| LawsApplied
| |
| OralArgument
| |
| Prior
| |
| USPage
| |
| USVol
| |
| ArgueDate
| |
| ArgueYear
| |
| DecideDate
| |
| DecideYear
| |
| fullname
| - Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (en)
|
| Holding
| - Attorney advertising that accurately stated a private professional certification was not misleading, and therefore was protected as commercial speech under the First Amendment. (en)
|
| Litigants
| - Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (en)
|
| source
| - 172800.0 (second)
- Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, 496 U.S. at 121 (en)
- Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, 496 U.S. at 112 (en)
- Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, 496 U.S. at 103 (en)
|
| text
| - . . .the statement is nonetheless potentially misleading. The name "National Board of Trial Advocacy" could create the misimpression that the NBTA is an agency of the Federal Government. Although most lawyers undoubtedly know that the Federal Government does not regulate lawyers, most nonlawyers probably do not. . . (en)
- Much like a trademark, the strength of a certification is measured by the quality of the organization for which it stands. The Illinois Supreme Court merely notes some confusion in the parties' explanation of one of those requirements. . . We find NBTA standards objectively clear, and, in any event, do not see why the degree of uncertainty identified by the State Supreme Court would make the letterhead inherently misleading to a consumer. (en)
- Charged with the duties of monitoring the legal profession within the State, the Supreme Court of Illinois is in a far better position than is this Court to determine which statements are misleading or likely to mislead. Although we are the final arbiters on the issue whether a statement is misleading as a matter of constitutional law, we should be more deferential to the State's experience with such statements. Illinois does not stand alone in its conclusion that claims of certification are so misleading as to require a blanket ban. At least 19 States and the District of Columbia currently ban claims of certification. (en)
- If a lawyer practices only in certain fields, or will not accept matters except in such fields, the lawyer is permitted so to indicate. However, a lawyer is not permitted to state that the lawyer is a 'specialist,' practices a 'specialty,' or 'specializes in' particular fields. These terms have acquired a secondary meaning implying formal recognition as a specialist and, therefore, use of these terms is misleading. [An exception would apply in those States which provide procedures for certification or recognition of specialization and the lawyer has complied with such procedures.] (en)
|
| has abstract
| - Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information. (en)
|
| Concurrence
| |
| JoinConcurrence
| |
| JoinPlurality
| - Brennan, Blackmun, and Kennedy (en)
|
| Plurality
| |
| SCOTUS
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)