This Comment suggests that the Court's ruling creates several problems and the Florida Bar rule should have been held an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The rule will disproportionately affect small firms and solo practitioners who cannot afford to advertise by means other than direct-mail. The ban on certain direct-mail advertisements will also have a negative impact on the general public, as direct-mail advertisements help low-income persons become aware of legal issues and gain access to the legal system, and decrease the cost of legal services. Finally, based on precedent, the law should have been stricken because it is premised on the vulnerable audience theory and promotes under-inclusive and over-inclusive state regulation.