The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. O'Connell case in 1968 revolved around the issue of whether a union could recommend specific lawyers to its injured members for legal representation without violating state laws against solicitation by attorneys. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Brotherhood, stating that such recommendations were protected under the First Amendment's right to free speech and assembly. The court also noted that unions have an interest in ensuring their members receive competent legal advice after workplace injuries, which outweighs any potential harm caused by attorney solicitation rules. This decision affirmed labor organizations' rights to assist their members with obtaining legal counsel following work-related accidents or incidents.

In the dissenting opinion for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. O'Connell et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow union solicitation of legal business on behalf of its members was a departure from established principles governing attorney-client relationships and could potentially lead to abuses. He expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest, as unions might be tempted to recommend lawyers who are more likely to favor their interests over those of individual members. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that such solicitation is protected by First Amendment rights, arguing instead that it falls under commercial speech which can be regulated by states in order protect public interest and maintain professional standards within the legal profession.