Can a law firm join a downtown civic council that promotes the business district, and have its partners listed individually on the membership rolls?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether his firm could join a downtown council, a non-profit corporation organized to promote the interests of the downtown portion of his metropolitan community. If the firm joined, the council would list the membership in one or more of the partners' individual names (none designated as attorneys at law), and the firm name would not appear on the membership rolls. The firm's offices were in the downtown area and it had an interest in the council's objective of modernizing and redeveloping the area.

The committee saw no ethical objection in any way to the proposed membership. It observed that the Canons of Ethics were not designed to stifle legitimate civic contributions by attorneys to the betterment of their communities, and that a lawyer's training and experience often equips him to serve in these aspects of community life. The committee characterized the proposed membership as not only unobjectionable but salutary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1967, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 27 on advertising and solicitation. Lawyer advertising is now governed by Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.1 and related rules). Subsequent rule amendments, and court decisions on lawyer advertising including Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), have changed the framework that governed restrictions on lawyer publicity. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm join the civic council at all?

A: Yes. The committee saw no ethical objection in any way to the firm joining the downtown council and called the membership salutary.

Q: Did the firm name go on the membership rolls?

A: No. As described to the committee, the membership would be listed in one or more of the partners' individual names, none designated as attorneys, and the firm name would not be carried on the rolls.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 27, which governed advertising and self-promotion by lawyers, including indirect publicity. Lawyer advertising is now addressed by Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; the Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.1. The committee treated civic membership in a community-improvement organization as a legitimate contribution rather than improper publicity.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-42: Public Mock-Court Program
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-48: Bank Estate-Plan Seminar

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-66-75/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-66-75.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 66-75
January 30, 1967
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A law firm may belong to a downtown council organized to promote civic interest in the downtown portion of a metropolitan community.
Canon: 27
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar inquires as to the propriety of his law firm joining a downtown council, a non-profit corporation organized to promote the interests of the downtown portion of his metropolitan community. It would be understood that in the event his firm joined, the council would be instructed to list the membership in one or more names of the partners of the firm as individuals (none of whom would be designated as attorneys at law), and that the firm name would not be carried on the membership rolls as such. The firm's offices are located in the downtown area in question and the firm maintains an understandable interest in the objectives of the council to modernize and re-develop the area.
We see no ethical objection in any way whatever to the proposed membership in this council. The Canons of Ethics were not designed to stifle or preclude legitimate civic contributions by attorneys to the betterment of their several communities. Indeed the training and experience of the lawyer in many instances peculiarly equips him to render service in these important aspects of community life. Thus it appears that the proposed membership is not only not objectionable, but also is salutary.