Can members of a law firm jointly donate to a community hospital and have their names placed on a donor plaque without it being improper advertising?

Plain-English summary

A firm of attorneys was approached to contribute to a community hospital's expansion drive and asked whether the members could make a joint gift and have their names inscribed on a plaque displayed in the hospital. The proposed inscription read "Gift of Mr. and Mrs. A and Mr. and Mrs. B," with no reference to A and B as members of a law firm.

The Committee concluded there is nothing professionally improper in making a gift in this manner. It reasoned that even though the community might know two of the donors are members of a law firm, their giving is as individual members of the community and not as attorneys, so they cannot be said to be advertising, directly or indirectly, within Canon 27. The Committee added that to hold otherwise would place an unwarranted burden on attorneys in their relationship to community activities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in December 1963, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics to lawyer advertising; the constitutional ground for lawyer advertising shifted after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and such questions are now analyzed under RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could law-firm members put their names on a hospital donor plaque?

A: Yes. The Committee found nothing improper, because the plaque named them as community donors, with no reference to them as a law firm.

Q: Did it matter that the community might know two donors were lawyers?

A: No. The Committee reasoned that they gave as individual members of the community, not as attorneys, so the gift was not advertising under Canon 27.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (advertising and solicitation), declining to treat ordinary community philanthropy as advertising. Lawyer advertising is now governed by RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

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

• Canon of Professional Ethics 27 (advertising and solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics 247 (1953) and opinions cited

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 16: Yellow-Pages Listings of Bar Memberships and Certificates
• NJ ACPE Op. 200: Advertising via Christmas Cards
• NJ ACPE Op. 319: Donating Legal Services for a Charity Auction

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp10-1.html

Original opinion text

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

86 N.J.L.J. 719
December 19, 1963

OPINION 10

Advertising

A firm of attorneys has been approached to make a gift in connection with the expansion drive of a community hospital. Inquiry has been made as to whether it would be proper for the members of the firm to make a gift jointly to the hospital and to have their names inscribed upon a plaque which would be displayed in the hospital. It is proposed to make the gift as follows:

"Gift of Mr. and Mrs. A and Mr. and Mrs. B"

In the making of the gift and upon the plaque there will be no reference to A and B as members of a law firm.

In the opinion of the Committee, there is nothing professionally improper in the making of a gift in this manner. Even though it may be known throughout the community that two of the donors are members of a law firm, their giving is as individual members of the community and not as attorneys; hence, they cannot be said to be advertising, either directly or indirectly, within the purview of Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. See Drinker, Legal Ethics 247 (1953) and opinions cited. To hold otherwise would place an unwarranted burden upon attorneys in their relationship to community activities.