Can a Florida lawyer write a general-interest legal column for a local newspaper?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether he could write a weekly newspaper column meant to inform the public about basic legal rights. The column would not advise on any specific problem or answer any individual question, and the lawyer would not be credited as an attorney or identified as a practicing member of the Bar.

The committee, applying former Canon 40, concluded that the contemplated column was not improper within the limits described. It relied on its earlier Opinions 61-40 and 63-29 (both since withdrawn), ABA Opinions 92, 162, and 270, and Drinker's treatise. The opinion drew the line at general legal information versus individual advice: a lawyer may write articles giving information upon the law, but may not accept employment to advise inquirers about their individual rights, and may not answer, even anonymously, individual questions through a newspaper column.

The committee also voiced caution about regular columns. It noted that Canon 40 was designed primarily for articles in law magazines or occasional articles elsewhere, and that a daily, weekly, or monthly newspaper column on legal matters would be difficult to keep from eventually crossing into individual advice (and so violating Canons 27, 35, and 47 as well), because readers tend to want practical answers to their own situations. Within the limits stated, the column was permissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (and referenced Canons 27, 35, and 47). The committee's note in the published opinion maps the analysis to current 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, 5.5, and the advertising rules). Two of the opinions it relied on, 61-40 and 63-29, were later withdrawn. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer write a general legal column for a newspaper?

A: Yes. Within the limits described, the committee concluded the contemplated column was not improper, because it would keep the discussion general and would not answer individual questions.

Q: What was the line the committee drew?

A: General legal information versus individual advice. Citing ABA Opinion 270, the opinion said a lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries about individual rights through a newspaper column.

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer would not be credited as an attorney?

A: That was part of the stated facts. The committee's permission was tied to the column keeping to general matters and not advising on specific problems; it also cautioned that a regular column is hard to keep from drifting into individual advice over time.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which allowed a lawyer to write articles giving information upon the law but not to accept employment to advise inquirers about their individual rights. The committee tied the analysis to the advertising canon (27), the prohibition on aiding the unauthorized practice of law and lay intermediaries (35), and the related canon (47). The published opinion maps these to current 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, and 5.5, with the Florida advertising rules).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 40 [Canons of Professional Ethics; writing on legal subjects; see current Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, 4-5.5]
• Canons 27, 35, 47 [advertising; aiding unauthorized practice and lay intermediaries]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinions 61-40 and 63-29 (both since withdrawn): writing for publication
• ABA Opinions 92, 162, 270: articles and columns on legal subjects; no individual advice through a newspaper column

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-30: A Newspaper Legal Column Limited to General Questions
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-31: A Legal-Aid Society Newspaper Column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-79/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-79-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-79
January 4, 1965
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may write a column in a newspaper if such discussion is of general matters of law and does not advise on specific or individual problems.
Canons: 27, 35, 40, 47 [See current 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, and 4-5.5]
Opinions: 61-40, 63-29; ABA 92, 162, 270
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar poses the following question:
An attorney has been asked to write a weekly column in a local newspaper for the purpose of generally informing the public as to the basic legal rights that the average citizen should be aware of. The column will not undertake to advise on any specific problem or answer any individual question that may be submitted. The object of the column will be to keep the discussion of the law general and as non-technical as possible.
Further, this attorney will be given no credit as an attorney nor will it in any way be indicated that he is a practicing member of the Bar.
We are asked if it would be proper for the attorney to write such a column.
In our Opinions 61-40 and 63-29 [since withdrawn] we said:
Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states: "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."
ABA Opinion 92 states: Writing and selling for publication articles of a general nature on legal subjects, is not per se improper.
ABA Opinion 162 holds that it is not unethical for an attorney to write articles on legal subjects for magazines or newspapers, and the fact that publication is in a trade magazine makes no difference. It is unethical for an attorney to allow his name to be carried in a magazine or other publication, representing that he is an attorney for a named organization and will furnish free legal advice to its members.
ABA Opinion 270 holds: A lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through the medium of a newspaper column.
Drinker, Legal Ethics, at page 263-64 says:
"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 inquires 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) The improper advertisement of the lawyer . . .
(2) The giving by him of legal advice to persons with whom he has not the personal contact and background required between the lawyer and client to make his advice reliable . . .
(3) Enabling the lay publisher, sponsor, or broadcaster to give legal advice, constituting the unauthorized practice of law . . .
. . .
Whether or not the lawyer is paid for articles is not decisive.
. . .
It is believed that Canon 40 was designed primarily to sanction articles in law magazines or occasional articles in other publications and that it would be difficult if not impossible to conceive a daily, weekly or monthly column in a newspaper or magazine devoted to the discussion of legal matters which would not, sooner or later, violate Canon 40 and also Canons 27, 35, and 47. What the readers of such columns want is not a general discussion such as they can find in a law book or in an article in a law magazine, but something practical which they can apply to their own personal experience. Laymen usually are unable to formulate questions clearly to such a column and a lawyer answering such is apt to follow what he thinks his readers want to hear about and to answer the personal problem which he sees behind their questions. This is what the publishers will ultimately see that they get.
Within the limits expressed the articles or articles contemplated are not improper.