May a lawyer let an organization he represents publish his picture and biography in the organization's promotional pamphlet to the public?

Plain-English summary

A federal savings and loan association issued a four-page pamphlet that it mailed to the public at large. Two inside pages carried the pictures and a description of the experience of two attorneys who served as legal counsel for the institution, with text praising their "combined legal astuteness." A member asked whether it was unethical for an attorney to permit the use of his picture and name in such an advertisement.

The committee analyzed the conduct under Rule 2 of the State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibited a lawyer from soliciting professional employment by advertising or otherwise, and under ABA Canon 27, which condemned self-laudation by lawyers, direct or indirect. Because the publication predated a January 5, 1960 amendment to Rule 2, the committee based its opinion on the rules as they existed before 1960 but noted its conclusion would be the same under amended Rule 2a. It distinguished permissible identifications, such as listing a lawyer who is a director of an institution among the other directors, from this pamphlet, in which neither lawyer was a director or officer and the purpose was to promote the institution while advertising the lawyers' experience.

The committee concluded that publication of the pamphlet with the knowledge or consent of the attorneys was a violation of Rule 2 and Canon 27 by the attorneys, and that it was improper even to carry the lawyers' names on such a pamphlet.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, before California adopted the former Rules of Professional Conduct (effective 1989) and long before the current rules that follow the ABA Model Rules format (effective November 1, 2018). It interpreted former State Bar Rule 2 and ABA Canon 27. Lawyer-advertising restrictions changed substantially after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which held that categorical bans on truthful lawyer advertising are unconstitutional. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

View original opinion

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer appear by photo and biography in a client organization's public pamphlet?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee concluded that permitting a picture and biography of the lawyer in the organization's public advertisement was improper self-laudatory advertising in violation of Rule 2 and Canon 27.

Q: Was there any way for a lawyer's name to appear in such material?

A: The committee identified that merely identifying a lawyer who is a director of the institution, alongside the other directors, was permissible, because the purpose there is to identify the directors, not to advertise the lawyer's experience.

Background and rules framework

The opinion predates the Model Rules and the numbered California rules. It interpreted former State Bar Rule 2 (and the then-new Rule 2a) prohibiting solicitation of employment by advertising, together with ABA Canon of Professional Ethics 27, which condemned direct and indirect self-laudation. Those authorities are the predecessors of today's advertising and solicitation rules (Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2). The constitutional landscape for lawyer advertising changed after Bates in 1977.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as in effect at the time):

• Former State Bar of California Rule 2 (and Rule 2a)
• ABA Canon of Professional Ethics 27

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee Opinions 43, 285

See also

• LACBA Ethics Op. 474: Use of a Private Investigator to Solicit Clients
• LACBA Ethics Op. 494: Cold Calling and Newsletter Mailings by Attorneys
• LACBA Ethics Op. 451: Publication of a Legal Article by a Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://lacba.org/?pg=ethics-opinions
• Original PDF: https://lacba.org/docDownload/2011011