Can a law firm list itself in the classified telephone directory of a community where it has no office?
State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1967-7: Out-of-Town Telephone Directory Listings
Short answer: The committee concluded that a nondistinctive classified telephone-directory listing in a community where the lawyer or firm did not maintain an office was proper only if the lawyer or firm actually practiced in that community, a fact question turning on the extent of the lawyer's contacts there.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1967, before the State Bar of California's adoption of the November 1, 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion interprets former California Rule 2, the predecessor to the current advertising rules (current Rules 7.1-7.5; Model Rules 7.1-7.3). It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which struck many categorical advertising restrictions; subsequent rule amendments and decisions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the State Bar of California's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked whether a law firm without an office in a directory's geographic area could list the firm, or its members individually with the firm name, in that area's classified section, and whether a firm with a branch office there could list all members, including those who did not work at the branch.
Former Rule 2 barred soliciting employment by advertisement but permitted nondistinctive "listings" in the classified section of telephone and city directories, limited in form to name, address, telephone number, and the designation "attorney at law," under a single attorney heading. The committee observed that the rule restricted the form and location of listings but did not, by its terms, restrict the geographic area in which an otherwise proper listing could be maintained. Drawing on ABA Committee informal opinions Nos. 573(a) (1963) and C-732 (1965), the committee noted that a lawyer may practice in areas other than where the office sits, and whether he does so is a fact question.
The committee resolved the question by looking to both the situation and the motivation behind the listing. Where the lawyer practices extensively in a community, whether or not he resides or maintains an office there, a listing is a convenience to the public and is proper. At the other extreme, where the lawyer has no practice or professional contacts in a community outside his office area, the listing is an improper attempt to advertise rather than to facilitate communication. Cases in between require assessing the extent of the lawyer's contacts with the community. The same standards apply to firms as to individual lawyers. The committee added that it did not endorse repeating individual attorneys' names under the firm name in either the alphabetical or classified section, viewing that repetitive form as more calculated to advertise the lawyer than to help callers find him, and it assumed any listing would be nondistinctive and under an "Attorneys" or "Lawyers" heading only.
Common questions
Q: Could a firm list itself in a phone directory where it had no office?
A: Yes, but only if the firm actually practiced in that community. The committee treated the propriety of an out-of-town listing as a fact question turning on the extent of the lawyer's or firm's contacts with the community.
Q: What made such a listing improper?
A: A listing in a community outside the lawyer's office area where the lawyer had no practice or professional contacts was, in the committee's view, an improper attempt to advertise rather than to facilitate communication.
Q: Could a firm repeat each member's name under the firm name in the directory?
A: The committee did not endorse that practice. It viewed repeating individual attorneys' names under the firm name as more calculated to advertise the lawyer than to assist users of the directory in finding him.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former California Rule of Professional Conduct 2, which prohibited solicitation by advertisement while permitting nondistinctive classified directory listings limited to name, address, telephone number, and the "attorney at law" designation. The committee compared former Rule 2 with former ABA Canon 27 and relied on ABA Committee guidance on out-of-town listings. The advertising restrictions are now embodied, in altered form, in California Rules 7.1 through 7.5 and Model Rules 7.1 through 7.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former California Rule 2 (advertising and directory listings); former ABA Canon 27 (advertising)
- Current analog: Model Rules 7.1-7.3 / California Rules 7.1-7.5
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances informal opinions Nos. 573(a) (1963) and C-732 (1965)
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 501: Solicitation Under Rule 7.3
- CA Ethics Op. 1995-142: Direct-Mail Marketing of Legal Services
- CA Ethics Op. 1993-129: Avoiding False or Confusing Communications
Source
- Landing page: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-opinions
- Original opinion: https://www.calbar.org/ethics/Opinions/1967-7.htm
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinions - FORMAL OPINION NO. 1967-7
- Is it ethical for a law firm which does not maintain an office in the geographical area covered by the telephone directory:
a. To list the firm name in the classified section?
b. To list each of its members individually, with the firm name under their names, in the classified section?
- Is it ethical for a law firm having a branch office in the geographical area covered by the telephone directory to list all of its members individually, together with the firm name below, including members of the firm who do not work at the branch inside the geographical area?
Rule 2, section (a), of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar provides, in part:
"Rule 2. Section (a). A member of the State Bar shall not solicit professional employment by advertisement or otherwise. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing a member of the State Bar shall not solicit professional employment by
.....
"(2) Using a newspaper, magazine, radio, television, books, circulars, pamphlets or any medium of communication whether or not for compensation, to advertise the name of the lawyer or his law firm or the fact that he is a member of the State Bar or the bar of any jurisdiction; nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent the publication in a customary and appropriate manner of articles, books, treatises or other writing."
Rule 2, section (b), of the Rules of Professional Conduct in part, provides:
"... nor shall this rule prevent listings in classified sections of telephone and city directories...provided, however, that a listing in a telephone or city directory shall not be in distinctive type, style or form or contain anything other than name, address, telephone number and designation as an attorney at law, and shall not, except as hereinafter authorized, appear under any classification or heading other than a single one used to designate attorneys at law,..."
It may be noted that while rule 2 specifically prohibits the use of any medium of communication "to advertise the name of the lawyer or his law firm," it permits nondistinctive "listings" in the classified section of the telephone directory pertaining to attorneys. While limitations have been placed on the form and location of the listing in the directory, there is no provision in the rule restricting the geographical area in which an otherwise proper listing may be maintained.
The questions of where a lawyer or law firm may maintain a proper telephone listing, and what is a proper listing, have been considered on several occasions by the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the American Bar Association. [Former] canon 27 of the Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Association, like rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, renders advertising by lawyers improper; but, unlike rule 2, [former] canon 27 does not contain any guidelines regarding telephone listings as such. On the question of listings by lawyers in out-of-town directories, however, the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances rendered informal opinions Nos. 573(a) (1963) and C-732 (1965) which treat, at least in part, the questions presented here.
Whereas earlier opinions of the American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances could have been read as suggesting impropriety in maintaining telephone listings outside the area in which a lawyer either maintained an office or his residence, that committee now finds no unethical implications in the maintenance of a proper listing in the classified section of a telephone directory in any community where the lawyer "practices." The American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances has specifically recognized that a lawyer may practice in areas other than those in which his office is located and has stated that the question of whether he does so is a fact question to be determined in each case.
It seems to this Committee that the questions to be decided require consideration of both the situation and the motivation of the lawyer in placing the listing. Where the lawyer is practicing extensively in the community, whether or not he resides there or maintains an office there, the telephone listing is a convenience to the public and facilitates communication with the lawyer, and no impropriety arises. At the other extreme, if the lawyer has not practiced in or had any professional contacts with a community, which community is outside the area in which his office is situated, the listing would be an improper attempt to advertise the lawyer or firm, rather than an attempt to facilitate communication between persons using the telephone. In between these extremes, each case would require a determination of the extent of the contacts of the lawyer with the community in question before the question of the propriety of the out-of-town listing in the classified section could be resolved.
We believe that the same ethical standards apply to law firms as apply to individual lawyers. That is to say, if a law firm is practicing in a community outside of the area in which it maintains its office, then the listing of the firm or its individual members, or both, in the classified section of the telephone directory of the community, would facilitate telephonic communications between clients or courts or other agencies and the attorneys, and such listing is not unethical. This would be so even though an incidental effect of the listing might be to bring the names of the lawyers or the name of the firm to the attention of the users of the yellow pages.
Where a lawyer is practicing with a law firm there is no impropriety in listing the firm name below the lawyer's name in the telephone directory. The Committee, however, does not endorse the practice of listing the individual attorneys' names under the firm name in either the alphabetical or classified section of a telephone directory. This repetitive form of listing seems more calculated to advertise the lawyer than to assist users of the telephone book in finding him.
It is, of course, assumed that any listing in any directory will be nondistinctive and will be under the heading "Attorneys" or "Lawyers" only.