In the case of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, attorney Philip Q. Zauderer was disciplined by the Ohio State Bar Association for using an illustration in his advertising that they deemed to be "deceptive and misleading." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Zauderer, stating that while states have a legitimate interest in preventing deceptive or misleading advertisements, this particular advertisement did not meet those criteria. Furthermore, it was determined that requiring attorneys to disclose additional information about their services does not infringe upon their First Amendment rights as long as these requirements are reasonably related to preventing deception among consumers.

In the dissenting opinion for Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun, argued that while commercial speech may be regulated more freely than other forms of protected expression, it does not mean that it can be subjected to any type of regulation. They disagreed with the majority's view on two grounds: first, they believed that an attorney's interest in using illustrations in advertising is a form of self-expression which deserves full First Amendment protection; secondly, they contended that requiring attorneys to disclose specific information about their contingency fee arrangements goes beyond what is necessary to prevent deception or confusion among potential clients. The justices felt this requirement was paternalistic and underestimated people’s ability to understand basic financial arrangements without government intervention.