Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.88(A) that bars an attorney from soliciting authority to represent a claimant or employer with respect to a worker’s compensation claim or appeal. Finding the provision violated the First Amendment, the Court acknowledged that the state had an interest—up to a point—in protecting the privacy of those who had filed a claim with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. A blanket ban of solicitation was too broad, said the Court. Ohio’s interest in protecting claimant privacy could not outweigh the law firm’s right to engage in commercial speech.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Bevan & Assoc., LPA v. Yost, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20201 (6th Cir., July 8, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 133.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see