tinction rests on personal communication versus publications. The attorney or investment advisers, when dealing one on one with a client, may be constitutionally regulated. When they issue publications to thousands or millions, the First Amendment protection emerges. This great distinction turns on a dubious empirical hypothesis. That hypothesis is that the individual client is more easily gulled by the advisers or lawyer than is a reader of a book or article. Therefore, the harm in the former case is greater than the aggregate harm in the latter. However, it appears far more plausible that a successful, manipulative, and scheming attorney or advisers can do far more harm to society by virtue of successful books and articles than the same individual could when advising a few score clients face to face. At best, therefore, the vast edifice of government regulation of the professions now rests on a dubious empirical assumption.