Can a lawyer who appears as a guest panelist on a TV legal-information show answer specific legal questions from the audience, and accept a viewer as a client afterward?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a ten-program public-information television series, shown in various cities, in which professional actors improvised skits and two guest attorneys and the program director commented on the legal implications, on topics like out-of-state divorce, buying a house, wills, consumer transactions, rights on arrest, and what to do after an accident. The attorneys were identified only as members of a particular state's bar, with no reference to firms or addresses, and were paid a $25 honorarium per appearance; the program, sponsored by a nonprofit educational organization and a state bar association, carried disclaimers that it was for public information only and that viewers with particular problems should seek professional advice. The question was whether a guest attorney could ethically answer particular legal questions asked by audience members.

The Committee analyzed the inquiry under Canon 27 (advertising), Canon 35 (intermediaries), and Canon 40 (newspapers/publications). Quoting Drinker, it noted the difficulty of any regular column or broadcast answering readers' or viewers' personal legal questions without violating those canons. It relied on ABA Opinion 270, which held it unethical for a lawyer to answer individual inquiries for legal advice through a newspaper column, even where the lawyer is anonymous, only general-interest questions are answered, and readers are cautioned to consult their own attorney, because the column is in essence one giving advice on inquirers' individual rights (which Canon 40 forbids) and the relation of a lawyer with those he advises must be direct and personal, not exploited by an intervening lay agency (Canon 35). It also cited New York City opinions to the same effect (and one permitting a radio program that cites only the point of law without replying to personal questions).

On the related question, the Committee concluded that the receipt of a retainer by the guest attorney from a previously unknown member of the viewing audience would be convincing evidence that the television appearance, coupled with the resulting pecuniary gain, was a violation of Canon 27.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 1969, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), so the Committee was applying the Canons of Professional Ethics (Canons 27, 35, 40). It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions, and the law of lawyer advertising changed substantially after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977). The advertising and solicitation principles it applied are now treated, far more permissively, under RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.3. 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 a lawyer on a TV legal show answer specific legal questions from the audience?

A: Not under this opinion. The Committee held that answering particular legal questions from audience members violated Canons 27, 35, and 40, even with disclaimers and anonymity.

Q: Could the lawyer accept a viewer who wrote in as a new client?

A: No. The Committee concluded that taking a retainer from a previously unknown viewer would be convincing evidence that the appearance, coupled with the resulting pecuniary gain, violated Canon 27.

Q: Was any media legal commentary permissible?

A: The Committee cited a New York City opinion treating it as proper for an attorney to conduct a radio program citing merely the point of law involved, without replying to personal questions; the problem arose from answering individual inquiries.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canons 27 (advertising), 35 (intermediaries), and 40 (publications) of the Canons of Professional Ethics to a lawyer answering individual legal questions through television, drawing on Drinker and ABA and New York opinions. In current New Jersey terms, lawyer advertising and solicitation are governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.3.

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canons 27, 35, 40
• Drinker, Legal Ethics 264 (1953)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinions 270 (1945), 162 (1936), 98 (1933)
• Assn. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Opinions 501 (1939) and 529 (1949)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 200: Advertising on Christmas Cards
• NJ ACPE Op. 548: Lawyer Free Public Seminars and Newspaper Advertising
• NJ ACPE Op. 335: Attorney Organizing a Prepaid Legal Services Group

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp148-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls. A connecting line introducing the Committee's holding that answering audience questions would be a "violation of Canons 35 and 40" appears to be partly cut on the mirror; the holding is reproduced as published.

92 N.J.L.J. 184, March 20, 1969

OPINION 148

Intermediaries - Publications - Advertising Television Show with Questions and Answers

Inquiry is made as to whether it is ethical for an attorney guest panelist on a television program to answer particular legal questions asked by members of the audience during the program.

A ten-program public information series is to be shown at different times on television by stations located in various large cities in the United States commencing in New York City with different New Jersey and New York attorneys as the guest panelists. The basic format of the program consists of professional actors improvising a skit, and the two guest attorneys and the program director commenting on the legal implications of the situations created in the scenes. Examples of the subject matter employed in the series are "The Out-of-State Divorce," "Buying a House," "The Need for a Will," "Consumer Transactions," "Your Rights on Arrest," and "What to do After an Accident." The attorneys are merely described as members of the bar of a particular state and there is no reference to their firms or to their addresses. They are paid an honorarium of $25 per performance. The program is sponsored by a nonprofit educational organization and a state bar association. The opening program of the series carries an oral disclaimer indicating the program is for public information only and indicating that a viewer with a particular problem should seek professional advice. Substantially the same disclaimer is printed on the screen and read by an announcer at the conclusion of each of the programs.

The inquiries appear to involve Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 - Advertising, Direct and Indirect; Canon 35 - Intermediaries; and Canon 40 - Newspapers. Drinker, Legal Ethics 264 (1953) states:

It is believed that Canon 40 was designed primarily to sanction articles in law magazines or occasional articles in other publications and that it would be difficult if not impossible to conceive a daily, weekly, or monthly column in a newspaper or magazine devoted to the discussion of legal matters which would not, sooner or later, violate Canon 40 and also Canons 27, 35, and 47. What the readers of such columns want is not a general discussion such as they find in a law book or in an article in a law magazine, but something practical which they can apply to their own personal experience. Laymen usually are unable to formulate questions clearly to such a column and a lawyer answering such is apt to follow what he thinks his readers want to hear about and to answer the personal problem which he sees behind their questions. This is what the publishers will ultimately see that they get.

While theoretically radio broadcasts might come within the principles under which legal articles are permitted under Canon 40, as a practical matter it is difficult to believe that such would not also violate Canons 27, 35 and 47; a fortiori would this be so as to a televised address.

A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 270 (1945) involved an attorney who proposed to answer individual inquiries for legal advice through a newspaper column. The opinion cited A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics, and Grievances, Opinions 162 (1936) and 98 (1933), and held:

These decisions clearly hold to be unethical the lawyer's participation in the writing of the column. We are of the opinion that such conduct does not escape the condemnation of Canons 35 and 40, because (1) the lawyer replying to the submitted questions is anonymous, (2) only questions of general public interest will be answered, (3) the reader will be cautioned not to rely on the published answer to his question as legal advice but to consult his attorney, and (4) the columnist will write with the approach of a lecturer rather than an adviser of legal rights.

The column will be in essence one in which the lawyer undertakes to give advice for the benefit of inquirers in respect of their individual rights, which Canon 40 forbids. Finally, it does not meet the requirement of Canon 35 that the relations of a lawyer with those to whom he gives legal advice should be direct and personal and that this service must not be exploited by an intervening lay agency.

Assn. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 501 (1939) holds that it would be unethical for an attorney conducting a written column in a publication to advise inquirers as to their legal rights although no compensation is received by the attorney for such services.

Assn. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 529 (1949) holds it is proper for an attorney to conduct a radio program on legal matters involving questions and answers citing merely the point of law involved but not replying to personal questions.

violation of Canons of Professional Ethics, Canons 35 and 40.

Inquiry is made as to whether it is ethical for such attorney in response to a letter from a member of the audience, to accept a retainer and establish an attorney-client relationship.

The receipt of the retainer by the guest attorney from a previously unknown member of the viewing audience would be convincing evidence that the television appearance, coupled with the pecuniary gain directly resulting therefrom, was a violation of Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27.