The U.S. Supreme Court case Bates et al. v. State Bar of Arizona in 1976 revolved around the issue of whether or not lawyers could advertise their services, which was prohibited by the professional rules of conduct established by the State Bar Association in Arizona at that time. The plaintiffs, John Bates and Van O'Steen, were attorneys who had violated this rule and faced disciplinary action as a result; they challenged its constitutionality under First Amendment grounds protecting commercial speech rights. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bates and O'Steen stating that lawyer advertising was indeed protected under the First Amendment to an extent - specifically informational advertisements about legal service pricing - but it also noted that false or misleading ads could be restricted or punished.

The dissenting opinion in the Bates v. State Bar of Arizona case argued that the majority's decision to allow lawyers to advertise their services was a mistake, as it could potentially harm both the legal profession and public interest. The dissenters believed that advertising would commercialize and degrade the practice of law, turning it into a business rather than a professional service. They also feared that allowing advertisements might lead to misleading or deceptive practices, which could exploit vulnerable clients who lack knowledge about legal matters. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions upholding bans on lawyer advertising due to these concerns about professionalism and potential deception. Thus, they disagreed with lifting such restrictions without compelling evidence demonstrating their ineffectiveness or harmfulness.