The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar case in 1963 revolved around the issue of whether non-lawyers could advise union members to seek legal help and recommend specific lawyers without violating state laws against unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Brotherhood, stating that such activities were protected by the First Amendment's guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly, as well as by federal labor laws which allowed for collective action on behalf of workers' interests. The court held that advising someone to obtain legal representation was not equivalent to providing actual legal services, thus it did not constitute unauthorized practice. This ruling affirmed unions' rights to assist their members with obtaining counsel for injury claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow union members to recommend specific lawyers could potentially lead to corruption and exploitation. He believed that this ruling would open up opportunities for unions and attorneys to form unethical relationships where they might exchange referrals for kickbacks or other benefits, which is against public interest. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential conflicts of interest between a lawyer’s duty towards their client versus obligations towards a referring union member or official who may have different interests in mind than those of the injured worker-client. Thus, while acknowledging the importance of workers having access to legal advice following an accident on-the-job, Harlan maintained that such counsel should be sought independently without any undue influence from third parties like labor unions.