The case of Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association in 1977 revolved around the issue of whether a state can discipline an attorney for soliciting professional employment from a layperson when the potential client's physical, emotional, or mental state is impaired or for personal gain. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ohio State Bar Association, stating that states have significant interest in maintaining standards among licensed professionals and protecting public against unethical conduct by lawyers. In this case, Mr. Ohralkik had approached two young women after they were involved in car accidents to offer his legal services which was viewed as taking advantage of their vulnerable situation for personal benefit. The court held that such direct solicitation could potentially influence individuals to make ill-advised decisions about legal representation under pressure and distressing circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a disciplinary action against an attorney who solicited clients was overly broad and could potentially infringe upon First Amendment rights of free speech. He contended that while some forms of solicitation may be unethical or unprofessional, not all should be considered as such. The justice believed it was important to distinguish between types of solicitation - those involving coercion or harassment versus those simply offering legal services in response to immediate needs. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential chilling effect on lawyers' ability to provide necessary information about their services due to fear of punishment under this ruling. In his view, rather than imposing blanket restrictions on lawyer-client solicitations, regulations should focus more narrowly on preventing deceptive or coercive practices.