515 U.S. 618 (1995)
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc.
Does the Florida Bar's 30-day moratorium on targeted direct-mail solicitation of accident victims and their relatives violate the First Amendment protections afforded to attorney commercial speech?
Under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, restrictions on lawful, nonmisleading commercial speech are permissible if: (1) the government asserts a substantial interest; (2) the regulation directly and materially advances that interest; and (3) the regulation is not more extensive than necessary, meaning there is a reasonable fit between the legislature's ends and the means chosen (Board of Trustees v. Fox). Attorney advertising is commercial speech subject to this intermediate scrutiny, and states have leeway to regulate lawyer solicitations to protect consumers, privacy, and the integrity of the profession (see, e.g., Bates v. State Bar of Arizona; Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n; Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n).
No. The Supreme Court upheld the 30-day ban, holding that it constitutionally regulates attorney commercial speech by directly and materially advancing substantial state interests in protecting the privacy and tranquility of accident victims and safeguarding the reputation of the legal profession, and that it is narrowly tailored as a time-limited, targeted restriction.
Went For It refines commercial speech doctrine for professional advertising by confirming that states may craft narrowly tailored, time-limited restrictions grounded in concrete evidence to protect consumer privacy and professional integrity. For law students, it is a key application of Central Hudson and Fox, illustrating both the type of evidentiary record regulators must assemble and the kind of tailoring courts expect. It also serves as an important counterbalance to cases expanding attorney advertising rights, clarifying that context—such as the timing and target of solicitations—matters when assessing whether a regulation reasonably fits substantial governmental interests.