LEWISTON – In one TV ad, white-shirted lawyers wielding baseball bats approach the camera, whacking the wooden clubs menacingly in the palms of their hands.

In another, an actor posing as an insurance company lawyer chokes on a sandwich when he finds out that a certain lawyer is representing a client seeking claims.

Spots like those, which have been aired on Maine television, are in the spotlight as the state supreme court considers new restrictions on lawyer advertising.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, apparently piqued by a growing number of aggressive TV campaigns by personal injury attorneys, late last year asked an advisory committee to study the issue of lawyer advertising.

The chairman of the court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Responsibility was guarded in his response when asked about the study.

“We’ve been asked to look at this and it’s under study and that’s about all I can say,” said Michael Nelson of Jensen, Baird, Gardner & Henry of Portland.

Chief Justice Daniel Wathen said recent experience with advertising is a motivating factor in taking a fresh look at it.

The baseball-bat ads drew such a strong public reaction that they were yanked by Hardy Wolf & Downing about a month ago and replaced with milder boxing ring spots.

The Maine Trial Lawyers Association is also looking into possible rule changes that could tone down attorney ads.

“One of our primary concerns is the issue of freedom of speech and the freedom of the marketplace,” said Ellsworth Rundlett III, past president of the trial lawyers.

In the U.S. legal system, lawyers are officers of the court and regulated by the courts. In most states, the state supreme courts oversee the bar and its rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court historically has held that commercial speech, or advertising, does not deserve as much First Amendment protection as political or artistic speech.

Unlike political speech, advertising cannot be false, deceptive or misleading.

But the court ruled in 1985 that requiring lawyer advertising “to be dignified” was unconstitutional.