Can a law firm give clients pens imprinted with the firm name, address, phone number, and practice areas?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked whether her firm could imprint pens of nominal value with the firm name, address, phone number, and a designation of its practice areas, and make those pens available for clients to use and keep. The committee treated the distribution as a form of attorney advertising, because the imprinted information can be expected to circulate beyond the clients who first receive the pens.

The committee traced two earlier ISBA opinions. Opinion 265, decided before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), had held imprinted pens improper. Opinion 612, after Bates, recognized that advertising was no longer per se unprofessional but held that distributing imprinted match books was "hucksterism" barred by then-Disciplinary Rule 2-101(B)(9). The committee then noted that the 1980 Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility, adopted after both opinions, changed the framework: Rule 2-101(a) permits advertising to contain the very information the inquiring lawyer proposed, and the "hucksterism" prohibition no longer appears in the 1980 Code.

The committee found the imprinted pens not inherently undignified under Rule 2-101(c), and addressed Rule 2-103(d), which bars giving anything of value to a person to initiate contact with a prospective client. Because the pens were of nominal value, the committee found they did not constitute a substantial incentive to induce such contacts. It concluded the firm may distribute the pens if an individual attorney's name appears on them, and overruled Opinions 265 and 612 to the extent inconsistent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 2010 Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rule (Rule 7.2), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can an Illinois firm give clients pens imprinted with the firm name and practice areas?

A: The opinion concluded yes, for pens of nominal value, provided an individual lawyer's name appears on the pen, treating the distribution as permitted advertising under the 1980 Code.

Q: Why did the committee require an individual lawyer's name on the pen?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 2-101(a) requires advertising that uses the firm name to include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its content.

Q: Did giving pens to clients raise a solicitation problem?

A: The committee considered Rule 2-103(d), which bars giving value to induce a person to initiate contact with a prospective client, but found the pens' nominal value was not a substantial incentive, so the rule was not violated.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the 1980 Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 2-101(a) and (c) (content and dignity of advertising), 2-105(a)(3) (designating areas of concentration), and 2-103(d) (giving value to initiate contact with a prospective client), under Canon 2. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2 (advertising), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.2, with the giving-value-for-contact concern addressed by Model Rule 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code Rules 2-101(a), 2-101(c), 2-103(d), 2-105(a)(3); Canon 2 (applied in the opinion)
• Illinois RPC 7.2 (2010 equivalent per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 7.2 (advertising); MR 7.3 (solicitation; giving value for contact)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), commercial speech and attorney advertising

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion 265: pre-Bates, distribution of imprinted pens improper (overruled here in part)
• ISBA Opinion 612: post-Bates, imprinted match books were "hucksterism" (overruled here in part)

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 14-06: Firm Apparel and Logo on Television
• ISBA Ethics Op. 12-04: Labeling Direct Solicitations as Advertising
• ISBA Ethics Op. 06-02: Third-Party Vendor Lawyer Promotion

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/812