Could a Nebraska lawyer list a home telephone number with the lawyer's individual office listing?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether a residence number could appear with the lawyer's business listing in the classified telephone directory, partly because the spelling of the lawyer's name made the general listing difficult to find.

The committee distinguished an individual alphabetical listing from a separate firm-name listing. An individual lawyer could provide a home number as an alternate because the directory served clients seeking telephone contact and the resulting publicity was negligible.

The firm listing could not be followed by the home numbers or names of all partners and associates. The directory's purpose was to provide telephone numbers, not serve as a law list; users could find each lawyer's number under the lawyer's own name.

The cited ABA guidance also permitted a duplicate individual listing under a common misspelling when particular circumstances justified it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2005 Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments, directory practices, or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.

Common questions

Q: Where could the home number appear?

A: As an alternate to the office number under the lawyer's individual alphabetical listing.

Q: Could all firm lawyers' home numbers appear beneath the firm name?

A: No. The opinion required users to find those numbers through the lawyers' separate individual listings.

Q: Could a lawyer use a duplicate listing for a commonly misspelled name?

A: The cited ABA opinion allowed that under particular circumstances when the duplicate reflected a common misspelling.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 27's advertising restriction through ABA opinions distinguishing useful, minimal individual contact information from a firm listing expanded into a law list.

Citations and references

Former ethics provisions:

• Former Canon 27

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 295 and 313
• ABA Informal Decision 646
• ABA Informal Opinion 849

See also

• Nebraska Ethics Op. 76-11: Geographic directory listings
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 77-3: Different firm names at multiple offices
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 70-1: Other businesses on letterhead

Source

• Landing page: Nebraska lawyer ethics opinions archive
• Original PDF: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 69-4

Original opinion text

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

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 69-4

AN ATTORNEY WHO PRACTICES INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH A FIRM MAY LIST HIS HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER AS AN ALTERNATE TO HIS OFFICE NUMBER UNDER HIS INDIVIDUAL ALPHABETICAL LISTING; HOWEVER, THE HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE FIRM PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD NOT BE LISTED AS ALTERNATES UNDER THE FIRM NAME ITSELF IN THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

A Nebraska attorney has inquired as to whether his residence telephone number may ethically be listed in the classified section of a telephone directory along with his business listing. He advises that because of special spelling of his name, some confusion has been experienced in clients identifying him in the general section of the directory.

The matter of individual listing of resident listing of telephone numbers was considered in Formal Opinion No. 295 and in that matter the Committee adopted the rule set forth at the beginning hereof. The Committee felt that listing the home telephone number by and individual would not infringe Canon 27 prohibiting advertising. The opinion stated:

"The guiding factor is whether the listing provides a service to the client or is a form of advertising. It is true that few emergencies arise which require a telephone call to a lawyer on nights, Sundays and holidays, and it is clear that the incidental publicity accorded the individual lawyer where his home phone number is listed under the firm name is negligible.

"If lawyers reside within the business areas covered by the directory their residence telephone numbers would ordinarily follow their business listings in the alphabetical section. We distinguish between listing the lawyer's individual business telephone number under his name alphabetically and under the firm listing which is usually separate."

The foregoing opinion was cited and followed in Formal Opinion No. 313 which outlined the restrictions on telephone listings as follows:

". . ., if a lawyer is a member of a law firm, both the firm and the individual lawyer may be listed, even if there is a charge made for a single listing. The listing should consist only of the lawyer's name, address and telephone number. The address should not be lengthened so as to make the listing occupy more space than a reasonable minimum. "

As stated in Informal Decision No. 646, the firm name in a telephone listing may not be followed by a listing of all of the partners and associates connected with the firm. In that decision, the Committee stated:

"The telephone directory is to enable users of the telephone to ascertain telephone numbers. It is not a law list. The telephone number of the firm and the telephone numbers of the individual lawyers connected with the firm, will be listed in the alphabetical section after their respective names. There is no public interest from the standpoint of telephone usage to be served by listing the names of the lawyers connected with the firm after the firm name.
Such information is properly obtained from a law list or from personal contact with or inquiry of the firm."

With reference to the matter of confusion of spelling referred to by the inquirer, attention is called to Informal Opinion No. 849 which suggests that in certain cases, duplicate listings may be appropriate:

"Under the particular circumstances described in the inquiry, listing the name ("Smyth") under its common but technically incorrect spelling ("Smith") as well as under its correct spelling ("Smyth") does not, of itself, appear to offend the spirit of Canon 27."

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 69-4