MNGT 664 Central Washington University Ollies Barbecue in Georgia Case Study

Write a one page about who will win the case

MGT 664 Case Brief Assignment
Name
Date
Chapter 5 Essay Question 1
Brief Description:
Scott Fane, a CPA licensed to practice in Florida and New Jersey, recently moved to Florida. In Florida
he along with other CPAs were illegally prohibited by the Florida Board of Accountancy from personally
soliciting new business executives and accounts. Scott ended up suing the Florida Board of Accountancy.
Arguments:
Scott’s argument is that his first amendment right of free speech is being violated. In his case, the
protected speech was commercial speech. When he reached out to the business executives, he did not
communicate any misleading information and he was only doing so to secure business.
The Florida Board of Accountancy argument was that commercial speech such as Fane’s solicitations do
not deserve the same protection as other forms of speech. They felt that by prohibiting CPA’s from
soliciting new business in Florida it would not only keep CPA work in their state high, but also ensure
more ethical behavior by CPSs.
Analysis:
There have been many cases addressing commercial speech as a form of free speech, focusing on what
should be allowed and what shouldn’t. This case is similar to another commercial speech case, Salib v
City of Mesa, where Salib, the owner of a Donut shop in Mesa, displayed a large advertisement sign in
his shop window designed to attract customers. He was later prohibited from doing so by the city. The
City informed Salib he was violating its municipal sign code which prohibited him from covering more
than 30% of the store’s windows with signs. Salib challenged the decision in court but city of Mesa won
the case because the city could show that its regulation was narrowly drawn as to limits on speech in the
context of time, place and manner (the so-called three part test) which a law such as this must pass to be
deemed constitutional.
Conclusion:
I would decide in favor of the plaintiff, Scott Fane, based on the precedent established in Salib. In that
case the court ruled in favor of Mesa because it was the government and it had a substantial interest in
protecting the appearance of the community and that it had a regulation narrowly tailored ot achieve that
purpose. As a private trade association, the Florida Board of Accountancy did not have the same rights
and privileges. Rather, the Florida Board of Accountancy was looking out only for the CPA’s in Florida
and wanted to keep all newcomers away. In pursuit of its goals, the CPA group made no attempt to
compromise with new CPA’s moving into Florida and offered no proof that the newcomer CPA’s would
hurt the CPA work in Florida or that the CPAs would subvert the laws or practice accounting unethically.
Therefore, I think that the Florida Bd of Accountancy had no grounds to prohibit recent arrival CPA’s
from soliciting clients in Florida.