Many state bar associations have sought to make their advertising regulations more stringent, arguably because the image of the legal profession has been suffering in recent years. This article seeks to explain these reform efforts by examining whether bar associations are responding to demands of embers as demonstrated by attitudes toward advertising, as well as by their advertising behaviors. It is possible that Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not having their intended effects and that advertising by lawyers is misleading and confusing, creating a climate ripe for reform. Alternatively, the decisions might be having their intended effects of driving down prices and allowing young firms/attorneys to compete for clients more effectively-outcomes leaders of the bar might like to thwart. Using survey data of small-firm lawyers gathered in four states before the reform movement received much attention, the evidence suggests that neither of these explanations accounts for attempts to make advertising more difficult. Small-firm lawyers, those intended to benefit from Bates and subsequent decisions, have not changed their behavior in any appreciable way. Most advertising is in the yellow pages and costs very little. Additionally, attitudes toward advertising are not particularly favorable. Although many are tolerant of the concept of advertising, most disapprove of specific examples of advertising they have observed. It is not clear from these results that legal consumers are any better informed than they were before 1977, as meaningful information is not being disseminated. Nor do young attorneys appear to be better able to compete. This suggests that reform efforts may be futile in terms of bolstering the image of lawyers.
