Can a lawyer wear clothing with the firm's logo and practice area during a TV interview?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked to appear on national television wants to wear clothing displaying the firm's logo and the type of law practiced. The committee was asked whether that is permitted.

The opinion concludes that wearing such clothing in public is a communication about the lawyer's services and a form of advertisement (citing ISBA Opinion 812, which treated imprinted pens as advertising), governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications. Rule 7.2(a) permits advertising through written, recorded, or electronic communication, including public media. The committee finds that logo-and-practice clothing is a written communication and, on television, also a communication through public media, both permitted under Rule 7.2.

The committee notes that, unlike prior advertising rules, Rule 7.2 no longer prohibits "undignified" advertising, so subjective dignity considerations are no longer part of the analysis. Rule 7.2(b) requires the communication to include the name and office address of at least one responsible lawyer or firm, so the firm name and location should be identified during the interview, and the logo on the apparel may suffice. The committee assumes the lawyer paid nothing to be interviewed and that the interviewer will not recommend the lawyer's services; if those assumptions are wrong, Rule 7.2(b) on giving something of value would be relevant.

In practice

Under this opinion, an Illinois lawyer may wear firm-logo clothing identifying the type of practice during a television interview. The opinion holds that the apparel is advertising under Rules 7.1 and 7.2, permitted if the information communicated is truthful and not misleading, with the firm name and location identified (the logo may be enough). The opinion notes the analysis assumes the lawyer did not pay for the appearance.

Common questions

Q: Is wearing firm-logo clothing on TV considered lawyer advertising in Illinois?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes it is a communication about the lawyer's services and a form of advertisement governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Q: Are there content limits on what the apparel can say?

A: Per the opinion, the information must be truthful and not misleading under Rule 7.1, and the firm name and office location should be identified under Rule 7.2(b). The opinion notes Rule 7.2 no longer bars "undignified" advertising.

Q: Does it matter if the lawyer paid to appear on the program?

A: The opinion assumes the lawyer paid nothing and the interviewer will not recommend the lawyer. If the lawyer gave something of value, the opinion notes Rule 7.2(b) would be relevant.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (false or misleading communications; Model Rule 7.1) and 7.2 (advertising; Model Rule 7.2), including the Rule 7.2(b) requirement that a communication identify a responsible lawyer or firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois RPC 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1): false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services
• Illinois RPC 7.2 (Model Rule 7.2): advertising through public media; responsible-lawyer identification

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion No. 812: imprinted promotional items as attorney advertising

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 12-04: Labeling Direct Solicitations as Advertising Material
• ISBA Ethics Op. 15-05: Links on a Lawyer's Website to Other Businesses
• NY State Bar Op. 1005: Misleading Superlatives in Lawyer Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/1406