Lawline v. American Bar Association

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an \as applied\ challenge was improper when the provision had not yet been applied to the plaintiffs
• holding that an ethical rule prohibiting lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law has only an incidental impact on speech
• explaining that a state actorʹs choice to adopt a private associationʹs rules does not transform the private association into a state actor
• declining to apply heightened scrutiny because there was no deprivation of associational rights
• \Any abridgment of the right to free speech is merely the incidental effect of observing an otherwise legitimate regulation.\
• “[L]aypersons have a right to obtain meaningful access to the courts, and to enter into associations with lawyers to effectuate that end.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).