Can lawyers own or rent offices in a building named something like 'Legal Center' or 'Lawyers' Building'?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether lawyers could properly own or occupy space in a building called "Anchorage Legal Center." The opinion concluded it was improper to do either. The Committee found the geographical reference in the name, especially combined with "center," misleading because it could be taken as a representation that the occupants had an official character.

The opinion concluded the name also constituted an indirect form of advertising: lawyers with offices in such a building would gain an advantage over other attorneys simply because of the building's name, since a person seeking a lawyer might well look in the "Anchorage Legal Center" on account of the name. Canon 27 prohibited advertising, direct or indirect, and the Committee viewed an owner who named a building "The Legal Center" or "Lawyers' Building" as advertising for the benefit of prospective tenants.

The opinion acknowledged that buildings named "Lawyers' Building" exist in other jurisdictions and that the client-drawing strength of such a name might be slight, but concluded there was an inevitable element of advertising in the use of such a name and no social utility in the practice.

Currency note

This opinion was later modified by Alaska Opinion 89-2, which reviewed and updated a set of older ethics opinions. It was issued in 1969, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (it applies the former Canons of Professional Ethics) and long before the 2009 revisions to those rules. The constitutional law on lawyer advertising changed substantially after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), and the rules on advertising have since been recodified. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific point mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why was occupying the "Anchorage Legal Center" improper?

A: The opinion concluded the name was misleading (suggesting an official character) and an indirect form of advertising under Canon 27, giving tenant lawyers an advantage in attracting clients.

Q: Did it matter that "Lawyers' Building" names exist elsewhere?

A: The opinion acknowledged such buildings exist in other jurisdictions but did not find that a persuasive justification, concluding there was an inevitable element of advertising and no social utility in the practice.

Q: Is this opinion still current?

A: No. The opinion was modified by Opinion 89-2, and the law on lawyer advertising changed after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977); treat it as historical context.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Canons; cf. Model Rules):

• Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (advertising, direct or indirect) (cf. Model Rule 7.1, Model Rule 7.5)

Other opinions cited:

• Alaska Ethics Op. 89-2 (modifying this opinion)

See also

• Alaska Ethics Op. 89-2: Withdrawal of Outdated Ethics Opinions
• Alaska Ethics Op. 71-3: Firm Names With Lawyers Not Admitted in Alaska
• Alaska Ethics Op. 81-1: In-Person Pro Bono Offer and Solicitation

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/69-4.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinion No. 69-4
Propriety of Lawyers Owning or Occupying Space in "Anchorage Legal
Center."
The Committee has been asked for an opinion on the propriety on
lawyers either owning or occupying space in a building called "Anchorage Legal
Center." The Committee concludes that it is improper for attorneys to either
own or occupy office space in a building so named.
The Committee believes that the geographical reference in the name,
especially when used with the word "center", is misleading because it may be
taken as a representation that the occupants have an official character.
The Committee also believes that the name constitutes an indirect form
of advertising. Attorneys having an office in a building so named would have a
certain advantage over other attorneys merely because of the building's name.
A person wishing to retain an attorney might well seek one in the Anchorage
Legal Center because of the name of the building.
Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics prohibits advertising,
direct or indirect. We believe that the owner who names his building "The Legal
Center" or "Lawyers' Building" is advertising for the benefit of his prospective
tenants.
We know that in some other jurisdictions there exist buildings named
"Lawyers' Building", but we do not believe this to be a particularly persuasive
justification. Nor are we unmindful of the uncertain client drawing strength
which names such as "The Legal Center" may have. It may be slight. Still, we
do believe there to be an inevitable element of advertising in the use of such a
name. Further, we see no social utility in the practice.
Adopted by Board of Governors in September, 1969.

1