being underestimated, the Court said that if the naivete of the public causes attorney advertising to be misleading, the proper remedy is more disclosure of information rather than less. The justices wrote: “We view as dubious any justification that is based on the benefits of public ignorance.” 433 U.S. at 375, 97 S.Ct. at 2704, 53 L.Ed.2d at 830. In a more recent case dealing with attorney advertising, the Court once again emphasized that there is a presumption favoring disclosure of information over concealment, for “disclosure of truthful, relevant information is more likely to make a positive contribution to decisionmaking than is concealment of such information.” Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n, — U.S. -, -, 110 S.Ct. 2281, 2291, 110 L.Ed.2d 83, 99 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Court said that in a ease
recognizing that providing defendant with hobsons choice between incompetent lawyer or no lawyer violates right to counsel holding that a lawyer may advertise his or her certification as a trial specialist 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 if his or her testimony is relevant material and unobtainable elsewhere holding that defendant was denied counsel even though his lawyer asked another defendants lawyer to take notes or whatever in the defendants lawyers temporary absence