Byron White

“ Although having information about certification may be helpful for consumers, the Constitution does not require States to go to these extremes to protect their citizens from deception. In my view, the Court would do well to permit the States broad latitude to experiment in this area so as to allow such forms of disclosure as best serve each State's legitimate goal of assisting its citizens in obtaining the most reliable information about legal services. ”

“ The public's comparative lack of knowledge, the limited ability of the professions to police themselves, and the absence of any standardization in the 'product' renders [attorney commercial speech] especially susceptible to abuses that the States have a legitimate interest in controlling. ”

“ State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) (attorney commercial speech "that is false, deceptive, or misleading of course is subject to restraint" (emphasis added) ) . The ordinary consumer with a "comparative lack of knowledge" about legal affairs should be able to assess the validity of claims and statements made in attorney advertising. Neither petitioner nor the plurality asserts that petitioner's claim of certification on its face is readily understandable to the average consumer of legal services. ”

“ The National Board of Trial Advocacy, a national certification program that provides recognition for superior achievement in trial advocacy, uses a highly-structured certification process in addition to a formal examination to select its members. ”

“ Finally, as the Supreme Court of Illinois noted, historically lawyers have been permitted to advertise specialization in patent, trademark, and admiralty law because of the difficulties encountered by the general public in finding such attorneys. See 126 Ill.2d, at 410-411, 128 Ill.Dec., at 541, 534 N.E.2d, at 986. Locating an attorney who is a civil trial advocate hardly poses the same obstacle. ”

“ Despite the veracity of petitioner's claim of certification by the NBTA, such a claim is inherently likely to deceive the public. The plurality states that " [a] claim of certification is not an unverifiable opinion of the ultimate quality of a lawyer's work or a promise of success, . ”

“ Ante, at 101 (citation omitted) . This view, however, conflates fact and verifiability. Merely because something is a fact does not make it readily verifiable. A statement, even if true, could be misleading. ”