May a lawyer write a series of general legal-information articles for a local free newspaper?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether it would be proper to write a series of articles on general topics of the law to be published in a "throw away" newspaper in his vicinity, which had a postal mailing service and was published twice a month.

The committee, drawing on Drinker, Legal Ethics, and Canon 40 (which had no current equivalent and allowed a lawyer to write articles giving information on the law but not to accept employment to advise inquirers about their individual rights), identified the principles primarily to be guarded against: improper advertisement of the lawyer (Canon 27), giving legal advice to persons with whom the lawyer lacks the personal contact and background needed to make the advice reliable (Canon 35), and aiding the unauthorized practice of law by enabling a lay publisher to give legal advice (Canon 47). It quoted ABA Opinion 92 (writing and selling general articles on legal subjects is not per se improper) and ABA Opinion 270 (a lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through a newspaper column). The committee concluded that so long as the lawyer does not answer questions of a specific nature or attempt to advise individuals as to their specific rights, he would not be violating the Canons in writing such articles, with the presence or absence of compensation immaterial.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 27, 35, 40, and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the underlying duties are now addressed by Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-7.11 (advertising scope), and 4-5.5 (unauthorized practice) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 7.1, and 5.5). Subsequent rule amendments and the line of decisions following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which reshaped restrictions on lawyer speech, may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer write a regular series of legal articles for a local paper?

A: Yes, within limits. The committee found no violation in writing general legal-information articles, so long as the lawyer did not answer specific questions or advise individuals about their specific rights.

Q: Did it matter that the paper was a free "throw away" with mailed distribution?

A: The committee did not treat the publication's free or mailed character as decisive. Its focus was on keeping the content general and not advising individuals about their specific rights.

Q: Did being paid for the articles change the answer?

A: No. The committee said the presence or absence of compensation was immaterial.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 27, 35, 40, and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, centering on the line between general legal information and advising inquirers about their individual rights. Those concerns are now addressed by Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 7.1, and 5.5). The committee relied on Drinker, Legal Ethics, at page 263, and a series of ABA Opinions, including 92 and 270.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons 27, 35, 40, 47 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, 4-5.5]

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 42, 92, 98, 121, 141, 162, 166, 168, 270, 273

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 263

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 62-14: Writing a Newspaper Legal Column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-61-40/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-61-40-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 61-40
February 8, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may with propriety write articles for publication in which he gives information upon the law. The transgressions of ethical principles primarily to be guarded against are: (1) The improper advertisement of the lawyer.; (2) The giving of legal advice to persons with whom he has not the personal contact and background necessary to make his advice reliable; and (3) The lawyer's aiding of unauthorized law practice. The presence or absence of compensation herein is immaterial.
Canons: 27, 35, 40, 47 [See current 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, and 4-5.5]
Opinions: ABA 42, 92, 98, 121, 141, 162, 166, 168 and 273
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar asks whether it would be proper for him to write a series of articles on general topics of the law to be published in a "throw away" newspaper published in his vicinity, which has a postal mailing service and is published twice a month.
Drinker, Legal Ethics, on page 263 states:
Canon 40 [no current equivalent], adopted in 1928, provides:
"A lawyer may with propriety write articles for publications in which he gives information upon the law; but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquirers in respect to their individual rights."
. . .
The application of Canon 40 to borderline cases always involves the question of good faith on the part of the lawyer and of the publisher or sponsor of the article or address.
The transgressions of ethical principles primarily to be guarded against are:
(1) improper advertisement of the lawyer (Canon 27) [See current Rule 4-7.11]
(2) giving by him of legal advice to persons with whom he has not the personal contact and background required between lawyer and client to make his advice reliable (Canon 35) [See current Rules 4-1.1 and 4-1.4]
(3) the lay publisher, sponsor, or broadcaster to give legal advice, constituting the unauthorized practice of law (Canon 47) [See current Rule 4-5.5]
. . .
Whether or not the lawyer is paid for articles is not decisive.
ABA Opinion 92 states that writing and selling for publication articles of a general nature on legal subjects is not per se improper. ABA Opinion 270 states that a lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through the medium of a newspaper column. See also ABA Opinions 92, 121, 141, 162, 273, 42, 166 and 168.
It would appear that so long as he does not answer questions of a specific nature or attempt to advise individuals as to their specific rights, he would not be violating the Canons of Professional Ethics in writing such articles.