Recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the attorney's right to advertise. This potentially revolutionary revision in prescribed professional communications has paradoxically had ambiguous results. Despite the freedom to advertise, most attorneys forego this opportunity to maximize profits, expand clientele, or merely enhance their images. Although there are promising signs that more attorneys might use public relations or advertising techniques, most attorneys have not taken advantage of promotional opportunities afforded by the Bates v State Bar of Arizona. Few lawyers take advantage of their opportunity to advertise, although it would benefit them, their profession, and consumers. One thing is absolutely certain--legal advertising works. There are at least two Constitutional justifications for allowing unrestricted legal advertising: the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech, and the right to counsel contained in the Sixth Amendment. Finally, fears about unprofessional advertising should not deter legal advertising because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Still, these conclusions must be qualified somewhat. First, caution is warranted because of the recency of issues and cases involved. Second, numerous authors have confused terms like public relations, advertising, marketing, and promotion. (Seventy notes are included.) (MS)