Can lawyers and judges take part in an educational television program that discusses legal matters for the public?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether a proposed television program, produced by a Dade County television station in cooperation with the Dade County Bar Association, raised ethical concerns. The program would be educational or public-information in nature, not commercially sponsored, and would consist of a newsman interviewing a judge or the head of a governmental agency. The guest would be introduced by name and official title with no other descriptive information; pending cases and matters would not be discussed, though examples involving the actual facts of decided cases might be given.

The committee generally encouraged such programs, provided they are presented through the auspices of a bar association or another responsible agency. Its single reservation was that actual cases should not be discussed and that hypothetical situations should be substituted. It added that care should be taken to discuss cases in general terms, so the presentation would not be improperly construed as legal advice by which members of the public might be misled. The opinion carries a caveat comparing Opinion 67-42 on the question of whether the cases must be hypothetical.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which reshaped the law governing lawyer advertising and public communication. The opinion applied former Canons 27 and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the Bar's own annotation directs the reader to current Rules 4-7.11 and 4-7.18(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.2). A later opinion, 67-42, bears on whether the discussed cases must be hypothetical. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyers and judges appear on a public-education TV program about the law?

A: Yes. The committee generally encouraged such programs when presented through a bar association or another responsible agency.

Q: What limit did the committee place on the content?

A: Its one reservation was that actual cases should not be discussed; hypothetical situations should be substituted, and the discussion kept general enough not to be construed as legal advice.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 27 (advertising) and 35 (professional independence) of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Bar's annotation maps the subject to current Rules 4-7.11 and 4-7.18(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.2). The analysis distinguishes impersonal public legal education, which the committee encouraged, from discussion that might be construed as legal advice on actual cases.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons 27, 35 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-7.11, 4-7.18(a)]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Op. 67-42 (caveat comparing whether the discussed cases must be hypothetical)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-42: Lawyer in a "Days in Court" Public Education Program
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 64-79: Writing a Newspaper Legal Column
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 64-30: Author Biographies in CLE Manuals

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-9/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-9-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-9
March 12, 1964
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Actual cases should not be discussed in an educational television program. Hypothetical situations should be substituted.
Caveat: With reference to necessity of the case being hypothetical, compare 67-42.
Canons: 27, 35 [See current 4-7.11 and 4-7.18(a)]
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar recently inquired of the Professional Ethics Committee whether a proposed television program to be produced by a Dade County television station in cooperation with the Dade County Bar Association involves any ethical improprieties. The program would be of an educational or public information nature and would not be commercially sponsored. It will consist of interviews by a newsman of a judge or a head of a governmental agency. The guest will be introduced by name and official title and there will be no other or further descriptive information. Pending cases and matters will not be discussed but it is possible that examples will be given in which the actual facts of decided cases may be involved.
This Committee generally encourages the presentation of such programs provided that they are presented through the auspices of a bar association or some other responsible agency. The Committee has but one reservation about the program to be presented. The Committee believes that actual cases should not be discussed and that hypothetical situations should be substituted therefor. Further, care should be taken to insure that the cases are discussed in general terms so that the presentation would not be improperly construed as legal advice by which some members of the public might be misled.