24 Pages Posted: 15 Dec 2011 Last revised: 28 Dec 2011
Date Written: December 14, 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.
Keywords: compelled lawyer representation, free speech rights, first amendment rights, Stropnicky v. Nathanson, Hurley v. Irish-American, constitutional law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Harpaz, Leora, Compelled Lawyer Representation and the Free Speech Rights of Attorneys (December 14, 1998). Western New England Law Review, Vol. 20, p. 49, 1998. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1972343