Can a lawyer take part in a public estate-planning lecture series, alongside nonlawyer specialists, that will be taped and shown on cable television?
State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1972-29: Lawyer in a Cable TV Lecture Series
Short answer: The committee concluded that an attorney's participation in a taped estate-planning lecture series with nonlawyer specialists, reproduced on cable television, would be ethical and proper, subject to the safeguards of Opinion 1967-12 plus additional conditions limiting identifying information, client intake, commercial use, and answers to specific legal questions.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1972, 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 (solicitation by advertisement) and 18 (advising inquirers through a publicity medium), the predecessors to the current advertising and solicitation rules (current Rules 7.1-7.3; Model Rules 7.2-7.3). It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which struck many categorical advertising restrictions. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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
An attorney asked whether he could join an insurance specialist and an investment specialist in a series of six to eight estate-planning and investment lectures, presented to the public at a college (with a moderate attendance fee and a faculty moderator) and taped for reproduction on a local desert-community cable television system. The committee distinguished its 1969 radio opinion (Opinion 1969-17), which had found it unethical for a small-town attorney to take audience calls on local radio, because here the attorney would engage in no conversation with the television audience and the proceedings would be taped and shown later.
The committee compared the inquiry to Opinion 1967-12, which permitted an attorney to teach a private course to laypersons on conditions that eliminated self-laudation, advertising, and solicitation. It found two differences (joint appearance with nonlawyers, and cable-television reproduction), but treated the joint appearance as "a difference without a distinction" that would be proper. The concern with the cable reproduction was that many viewers might seek to retain the attorney, especially for estate planning, on an assumption that he must be an expert.
The committee concluded the appearance would be ethical and proper under the same conditions as Opinion 1967-12, plus additional conditions: only the attorney's name and State Bar membership should be stated (no other qualifications); he should not accept clients who seek him solely because of the broadcast; the tape should not be used commercially; he should retain the right to approve the tape and consider local-bar review; he is admonished about Rule 18 if there is a question-and-answer period; he should caution the audience not to solve their own estate-planning problems based on his statements; and he should avoid self-laudatory remarks and discussing his own cases. The committee added that helping laypersons recognize legal problems is an important function of the profession, and such educational programs should be motivated by public benefit, not publicity or employment for the participating attorney.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer take part in a taped cable-TV lecture series for the public?
A: Yes, the committee concluded it would be ethical and proper, distinguishing the earlier radio opinion because the lawyer would not converse with the audience and the program was taped, provided the stated conditions are met.
Q: Does appearing alongside nonlawyer specialists change the result?
A: No. The committee called the joint appearance with nonlawyers "a difference without a distinction" and treated it as proper.
Q: What limits did the committee place on the lawyer's participation?
A: Among others: state only his name and State Bar membership, decline clients who seek him solely because of the broadcast, keep the tape out of commercial use, retain approval rights over the tape, heed Rule 18 on answering specific legal questions, caution the audience against self-help, and avoid self-laudatory remarks or discussing his own cases.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former California Rule 2 (solicitation by advertisement) and Rule 18 (advising inquirers about specific legal problems through a publicity medium), building on Opinions 1967-12 (private course for laypersons) and 1969-17 (radio call-in program). These advertising and solicitation concerns now appear, in altered form, in Model Rules 7.2-7.3 and the California analogs (Rules 7.1-7.3).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former California Rules 2 (section a, subdivision (2)) and 18
- Current analogs: Model Rules 7.2-7.3 / California Rules 7.1-7.3
Other opinions cited:
- State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1967-12 (43 State Bar J. 52): private law course for laypersons
- State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1969-17 (44 State Bar J. 202): radio call-in program
See also
- CA Ethics Op. 1967-12: Teaching a Law Course to Lay Persons
- CA Ethics Op. 1969-17: Lawyer Hosting a Radio Program
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/1972-29.htm
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
What are the ethical responsibilities with respect to an attorney's participation in a lecture series to be reproduced on cable television?
Rules 2 and 18 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, in conjunction with an insurance specialist and investment specialist, to participate in a series of six to eight lectures or seminars on estate planning and investments, to be presented to members of the public at a college, when said lectures or seminars will be televised and reproduced on a cable television system. The lecture or seminars would be presented in a desert community and would be televised to residents of that area only.
The attorney requesting the opinion has stated as follows:
(a) Those persons attending the lectures or seminars would be charged a moderate attendance fee by the college;
(b) Those persons viewing the lectures as reproduced on television would be customers of the cable television communication company who have paid a fee to the company;
(c) The primary purpose of the lectures or seminars would be to satisfy a public need for residents of the desert area; and,
(d) The moderator would be a member of the college faculty.
On January 21, 1969, this Committee adopted opinion No. 1969-17 (44 State Bar J. 202) which stated that it would be unethical for an attorney in a small town to appear on a local radio station and talk with members of the radio audience who called the station during the broadcast. The thrust of the opinion was that such conduct would result in solicitation by advertising, which is proscribed by rule 2, section a, subdivision (2), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 2, section a, subdivision (2), of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in part, as follows:
"A member of the State Bar shall not solicit professional employment by advertising 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..."
The facts in the instant case differentiate it from the situation where the attorney proposed to answer questions on a local radio broadcast. The attorney in the instant case would engage in no conversations with the television audience, and the televised proceedings would be taped and shown at a time subsequent to the presentation of the lectures or seminars.
On October 13, 1967, this Committee adopted opinion No. 1967-12 (43 State Bar J. 52) which, based upon certain conditions, held that it was ethical for an attorney to offer and conduct a private course in which the attorney would lecture and instruct businesspersons or other laypersons in the fundamentals of certain areas of the law. The said conditions were as follows:
-
The course was not a course preparatory to the practice of law;
-
Only hypothetical questions would be asked or answered during the lectures;
-
Lectures would not be given at a law office;
-
The attorney would not accept any of those he lectured as either his law clients or as clients of his law firm, nor would he refer them to any other lawyer;
-
Any advertising of the course would refer to the course only and that it was to be given by a member of the California bar; and,
-
The name of the attorney giving the course, the name of his law firm, his office address, and his office telephone number would not appear in advertising pertaining to the course.
The 1967 opinion states, in part, as follows:
"The conditions under which the lectures would be given under the facts before us seem to eliminate either self-laudation or advertising or solicitation so far as the member of the bar giving the lecture is concerned."
There are at least two factors present in the instant situation which differentiate it from the facts stated in the 1967 opinion:
-
The attorney in the instant case proposes to participate in a series of lectures or seminars with nonlawyers; and,
-
The lectures or seminars in the instant case would be reproduced on cable television.
The joint appearance with nonlawyers is a difference without a distinction, and would be proper. The apparent significance of the reproduction of the lectures or seminars on cable television is that a substantial number of people would see the attorney and might therefore endeavor to retain the attorney to represent them, especially in estate planning matters. A layperson might believe that, because the attorney was selected by the college to participate in the program and the program was selected by the cable television firm for reproduction, the attorney must be an expert in the estate planning field.
Whatever the impact of the attorney's participation may be, and whether he is to be the moderator or one of the participants, the Committee is of the opinion that the appearance of the attorney on cable television, under the facts stated, would be ethical and proper under the same conditions stated in opinion No. 1967-12 and the following additional conditions:
-
During the series of lectures or seminars, including the televising of them, only the name of the attorney and the fact that he is a member of The State Bar of California should be stated, and no other information concerning the attorney or his qualifications should be furnished;
-
The attorney should not accept as clients any persons who seek to retain his services solely because of the televising of the lectures or seminars on cable television;
-
The television tape of the lectures or seminars should not be used for commercial purposes;
-
The attorney should retain the right to approve of the television tape before it is presented on the cable television system, and he should consider having it reviewed by his local bar association;
-
In the event that there is to be a question and answer period at the lectures or seminars, the attorney is admonished of the content of rule 18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
"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."
-
The attorney should caution members of the audience that they should not attempt to solve their individual legal problems in the estate planning field on the basis of the statements made by him during the lectures or seminars, since slight changes in fact situations may require a material variance in applicable advice; and,
-
The attorney should refrain from making any self-laudatory remarks and should refrain from discussing any case he is participating in or has participated in.
An important function of the legal profession is to aid laypersons to recognize their legal problems since such problems may not be self-revealing and often are not timely noticed. Attorneys acting under proper auspices should encourage and participate in educational programs concerning our legal system, with particular reference to legal problems that frequently arise. Such educational programs should be motivated by a desire to benefit the public and not to obtain publicity or employment for the participating attorney.
An attorney's participation under the conditions stated and prescribed herein would not, in the Committee's opinion, be for purposes for soliciting professional employment, advertising or self-laudation.