Compelled Lawyer Representation and the Free Speech Rights of Attorneys
Western New England University School of Law
December 14, 1998
Western New England Law Review, Vol. 20, p. 49, 1998
This Article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Hurley v. Irish-American and compares it to the decision in Stropnicky v. Nathanson. It then considers whether there are sufficient distinctions between the two cases so as to defeat the First Amendment argument that was successful in Hurley. It concludes that the differences between the two cases are not sufficiently significant from the point of view of the First Amendment and that the application of the state public accommodation statute to a lawyer's ideologically motivated decision not to represent a client violates the First Amendment.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: compelled lawyer representation, free speech rights, first amendment rights, Stropnicky v. Nathanson, Hurley v. Irish-American, constitutional lawAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: December 15, 2011 ; Last revised: December 28, 2011
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.453 seconds