Can a Florida lawyer state on an office sign, letterhead, or business card that he is also a registered real estate broker?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether an attorney can place a sign on his law office door or have wording printed on his letterhead and business card indicating that he is a registered real estate broker. It explained that the committee had long taken the position that the two professions must be conducted from offices that are functionally and geographically separate, a conclusion based on the former DR 2-102(E) and the prior Opinion 73-18 (since withdrawn).

The committee then recognized that the old DR 2-102(E) had been deleted from the new Disciplinary Rule 2-102, as promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in its decision of July 26, 1979 amending the Code of Professional Responsibility. In view of that revision, the committee concluded that the proposed conduct appears no longer prohibited. It cautioned, however, that the "feeder" aspect of the association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent changes to the Code related to advertising.

Currency note

This opinion was issued around 1979, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

The official PDF of this opinion does not carry a printed issuance date. The opinion references a July 26, 1979 rule amendment, which places it around 1979.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise that he is also a real estate broker?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may indicate that status on an office sign, letterhead, or business card, after the deletion of the former DR 2-102(E).

Q: Did the lawyer once have to keep the two practices separate?

A: Yes. The opinion explained the committee had long required the two professions to be conducted from functionally and geographically separate offices, based on the former DR 2-102(E) and Opinion 73-18.

Q: What caution did the opinion add?

A: The opinion cautioned that the "feeder" aspect of the association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent advertising-related Code changes.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the revised CPR DR 2-102 after the July 26, 1979 deletion of DR 2-102(E). The communication and firm-identification questions correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5 (Florida Rules 4-7.14 and 4-7.21).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR DR 2-102 (Model Rules 7.1, 7.5)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), commercial-speech protection for lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Ethics Opinion 73-18 (since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 78-14: Practicing Law and Real Estate From the Same Office
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 79-4: Lawyer Holding a Real Estate Broker's License
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 86-1: Associates in a Law Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-79-3/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-79-3-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 79-3
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may place a sign on his law office door or have wording printed on his letterhead and business cards indicating that he is a registered real estate broker.
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22.
CPR: DR 2-102
Opinion: 73-18
Vice Chairman Mead stated the opinion of the committee:
The issue presented is whether an attorney can place a sign on his law office door or have wording printed on his letterhead and business card indicating that he is a registered real estate broker.
It has long been the Committee's position that the two professions must be conducted from offices that are functionally and geographically separate. This conclusion was based on DR 2-102(E), which prohibited the dual practice presented here, and our prior opinion 73-18 [since withdrawn]. However, we now recognize the deletion of the old DR 2-102(E) from the new Disciplinary Rule 2-102 as promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in its decision of July 26, 1979, amending the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar.
In view of the above revision of DR 2-102, the proposed conduct appears to be no longer prohibited. We caution the attorney, however, that the "feeder" aspect of this association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent changes in the Code related to advertising.