will result in the suppression of speech cannot be accepted. Unlike the warnings mailed to book distributors in Bantam Books, a request for substantiation does not expressly state that a particular communication has been found objectionable. At most, the request suggests that the Review Committee has doubts as to the accuracy of a statement or representation made or implied in an advertisement or solicitation. If lawyers know the statements or representations in their advertisements or solicitations can be substantiated, they are unlikely to remove the communication from circulation. Plaintiffs Adler, Bandy, and Newton testified that they could substantiate statements in their advertisements or solicitation letters with little difficulty. See Shapero, 486 U.S. at 477, 108 S.Ct. at 1924 (<HOLDING>). The Review Committee consequently will not
recognizing that providing defendant with hobsons choice between incompetent lawyer or no lawyer violates right to counsel recognizing that state agencies might require the lawyer to prove the truth of the fact stated by supplying copies of the court documents or material that led the lawyer to the fact holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person holding that a request for a lawyer requires the police to cease questioning until the accused consults with his or her lawyer unless the defendant initiates further conversation holding that a lawyer is a necessary witness where the lawyers testimony is relevant to disputed material questions of fact and where there is no other evidence available to prove those facts