Can a local lawyer host a radio program discussing legal topics and taking audience phone calls?
State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1969-17: Lawyer Hosting a Radio Program
Short answer: The committee concluded that a local attorney's participation in a radio series, introduced by name as a local lawyer on a station in the town where he practices, would result in solicitation by advertising under former Rule 2, and that he should decline to participate.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1969, 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 Rules 2 and 18, the predecessors to the current advertising and solicitation rules (current Rules 7.1-7.3; 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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
A lawyer practicing in a small town asked whether he could appear in a series of local radio programs in which the announcer would introduce him by name as a local attorney and friend, he would discuss issues of the day such as capital punishment, libel of public figures, and marijuana, and audience members could call in and talk with him, with the understanding that no caller or the audience would be advised on personal legal problems beyond a general admonition to consult their own attorney.
The committee quoted former Rule 2 (no solicitation by advertisement, including by volunteering counsel or by using radio to advertise the lawyer's name, firm, or bar membership) and former Rule 18 (no advising inquirers about their specific legal problems through a publicity medium). It concluded that Rule 2 explicitly prohibited solicitation by use of radio to advertise the lawyer's name or the fact of bar membership, and that the attorney's participation in the described broadcasts in the town where he practices would result in solicitation by advertising. The committee was of the view that he should decline to participate, citing similar conclusions by the Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics (informal opinion No. 1964-7 and Opinions Nos. 145, 186, and 299) and Drinker's and Wise's treatments of legal ethics.
Common questions
Q: Could a local lawyer host a radio program on legal topics in his own town?
A: No. The committee concluded that participation, introduced by name as a local attorney on a station in the town where he practices, would result in solicitation by advertising under former Rule 2, and he should decline.
Q: Did it matter that callers would not get personal legal advice?
A: The committee's conclusion turned on the advertising effect of naming the local attorney on local radio, not on whether personal advice was given; former Rule 18 separately barred advising inquirers about specific legal problems through a publicity medium.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former California Rule of Professional Conduct 2 (solicitation by advertisement, including by radio) and former Rule 18 (advising inquirers about specific legal problems through a publicity medium). The advertising and solicitation restrictions are now embodied, in altered form, in California Rules 7.1 through 7.3 and Model Rules 7.1 through 7.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former California Rules 2 and 18
- Current analog: Model Rules 7.1-7.3 / California Rules 7.1-7.3
Other opinions cited:
- Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics informal opinion No. 1964-7 and Opinions Nos. 145 (1943), 186 (1951), and 299 (1966)
Other authorities:
- Drinker, Henry S., Legal Ethics (1953) p. 264; Wise, Legal Ethics (1970) p. 31.
See also
- CA Ethics Op. 1967-12: Teaching a Law Course to Lay Persons
- CA Ethics Op. 1967-10: Will Pamphlets and Referring Clients to Specialists
- ABA Formal Op. 501: Solicitation Under Rule 7.3
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/1969-17.htm
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinions - FORMAL OPINION NO. 1969-17
Editor's Note: Please refer to the California Rules of Professional Conduct Cross Reference Chart for a table indicating the corresponding current operative rule. There, you can also link to the text of the current rule.
May an attorney ethically participate in a series of radio programs in which he is to discuss topics related to law and talk with members of the listening audience by telephone?
Rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar.
The opinion of this Committee is sought as to whether it is ethical for an attorney to participate in a series of radio programs under conditions furnished by the attorney requesting the opinion which read:
"A California attorney is practicing in a small town and wishes to make appearances on a local radio station in the town in which he is practicing. The radio announcer will introduce him as a local attorney and a friend, and give his name.
The attorney wishes to discuss on the radio pressing issues of our time, such as capital punishment, libel of public figures, marijuana, etc. The radio audience will in turn be permitted to call up the radio station and talk with the attorney. In no event will any such caller or the audience in general be advised upon personal legal problems, other than the general admonishment to consult their own personal attorney."
The Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California provide, 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
"(1) Volunteering counsel or advice except where ties of blood relationship or trust make it appropriate.
"(2) Using a newspaper, magazine, radio, television, books, circulars, pamphlets, or any medium of communication, 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 18. A member of the State Bar shall not advise inquirers or render opinions to them through or in connection with a newspaper, radio or other publicity medium of any kind in respect to their specific legal problems, whether or not such attorney shall be compensated for his services."
Rule 2 explicitly prohibits solicitation by the use of radio to advertise the name of the lawyer or his law firm or the fact that he is a member of the State Bar. It is the opinion of this Committee that the attorney's participation in the described series of broadcasts in the town in which he practices will result in solicitation by advertising. It is our view that he should decline to participate. Similar views have been expressed by the Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics in informal opinion No. 1964-7 and Opinions Nos. 145 (1943), 186 (1951) and 299 (1966). (Also see Drinker, Legal Ethics (1953) at page 264 and Wise, Legal Ethics (1970) at page 31.)