Can a lawyer have a lighted sign identifying the law office?

Plain-English summary

The Committee had received several requests from lawyers, many moving from the city to the suburbs, asking whether their law-office sign could be lit for the convenience of clients. It answered "Yes." It explained that before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona lawyer advertising was strictly regulated, but that since Bates and In re R.M.J. the Committee's view is that a lawyer may advertise so long as the advertising is not false, fraudulent, or misleading, noting it had already concluded in KBA E-263 that a lawyer could include a photograph in an advertisement.

The opinion quoted DR 2-102(A)(3), which permits a sign on or near the office door and in the building directly identifying the law office without stating the nature of the practice except as permitted by DR 2-105. It acknowledged that, before Bates and R.M.J., the Committee had concluded a lawyer could not place a sign across the street from the office building (KBA E-130) or outside the building housing the office (KBA E-170). Concluding it was now appropriate to consider lawyers' signs consistent with the United States and Kentucky Supreme Court decisions and SCR 3.135, the Committee held that a sign that is not false, fraudulent, or misleading is permissible, and modified its prior opinions and DR 2-102(A)(3) to that extent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. It rests on the post-Bates advertising decisions. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Kentucky lawyer have a lighted office sign?

A: Under this opinion, yes, so long as the sign is not false, fraudulent, or misleading.

Q: What changed to allow it?

A: The opinion pointed to Bates and In re R.M.J., which relaxed restrictions on lawyer advertising, leading the Committee to modify its earlier, more restrictive sign opinions.

Q: What did the older opinions say about signs?

A: The opinion noted that, before Bates, the Committee had barred a sign across the street from the office (KBA E-130) or outside the office building (KBA E-170); E-285 modified that to the extent the sign is truthful.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(A)(3) of the former Code (office-identifying signs), reread against the post-Bates and R.M.J. First Amendment framework and SCR 3.135. The modern analogs are Model Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising). The analysis turned on whether the sign is truthful and non-misleading.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(A)(3) (former Code)
• MR 7.1 (communications about services); MR 7.2 (advertising)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising
• In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), truthful lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

• KBA E-130, E-170 (modified); KBA E-263 (photograph in advertisement)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-320: Shared Office Nameplate
• KBA Ethics Op. E-302: Practicing Under a Trade Name

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-285.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-285
Issued: January 1984

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), especially Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May a lawyer have a lighted sign?

Answer:

Yes.

References:

DR 2-102(A)(3); KBA E-130, E-170, E-263; In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977); SCR 3.135 (now Rules 7.01-7.60) OPINION

The Ethics Committee has received several requests from lawyers concerning the law office sign. A number of these have requested whether they can have lights on the sign or the sign be lit. With the increase of the lawyers moving from city to the suburban area, the lawyers feel that it is necessary to have their law office sign lit for the convenience of their clients. Prior to Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), advertising by lawyers was strictly regulated. Since Bates, In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), the opinion of the Ethics Committee is the lawyer may advertise as long as it is not false, fraudulent or misleading as we noted in KBA E-263 the lawyer can now include a photograph of the lawyer in an advertisement. DR 2-102(A)(3) provides as follows: "A sign on or near the door of the office and in the building directly identifying the law office. The sign shall not state the nature of the practice, except as permitted under DR 2-105." Prior to Bates and R.M.J., this Committee on construing the Disciplinary Rules concluded that a lawyer could not place a sign across the street from the law office building (KBA E-130) nor in place outside of the building in which the law office is located (KBA E-170). It is now appropriate for the Ethics Committee to consider lawyer's signs consistent with the United State Supreme Court decisions; the Kentucky Supreme Court decisions, and SCR 3.135. It is our opinion that as long as the law office sign is not false, fraudulent or misleading, it is permissible and our opinions and DR 2-102 (A)(3) are modified to this extent.
____

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.