Can a lawyer use the law firm's letterhead to send a political endorsement letter?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1971. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Committee considered a law firm's letterhead used for political activity. The letter, addressed to members of a community's police department, described certain benefits for them if a specific group of officeholders was elected. Of the five signers, only one was listed as a lawyer in the 1971 Lawyers' Diary and Manual and as a partner in the firm whose stationery was used.
The Committee stated at the outset that the letter was obviously ill-advised and improper, confronting former Canon 27. Citing ABA Informal Opinion 972 (1967), it drew a distinction: a letterhead listing only the names of lawyers endorsing a candidate for a specific office might, under stated conditions, be acceptable, but publishing letters of lawyers on their firm's stationery endorsing candidates would be improper and in violation of former Canon 27. The Committee directed the bar's attention to the new Disciplinary Rules on the use of lawyers' letterheads and concluded that the letter in question is improper.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1971, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. Lawyer-publicity and letterhead restrictions of this kind were substantially changed after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and later rule revisions; lawyer communications and firm letterheads are now governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer send a political endorsement on firm letterhead?
A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee held that publishing lawyers' endorsements on their firm's stationery is improper.
Q: Was any lawyer political endorsement acceptable?
A: The Committee noted that a letterhead listing only the names of lawyers endorsing a candidate for a specific office might, under stated conditions, be acceptable, distinguishing that from use of firm stationery.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Canon 27 and the new Disciplinary Rules on letterheads to political use of firm stationery, drawing on ABA Informal Opinion 972. In current New Jersey terms, lawyer communications and letterheads are governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Canon 27 and the Disciplinary Rules on letterheads, as in effect 1971; now MR 7.1 / 7.5 and NJ RPC 7.1 / 7.5
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, Informal Opinion 972 (1967)
See also
- NJ ACPE Op. 244: A Lawyer Campaigning for Office in a Service Organization
- NJ ACPE Op. 235: Announcing a Return to Private Practice
Source
- Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp222-1.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.
94 N.J.L.J. 1013, November 4, 1971
OPINION 222
Political Use of Letterhead
This Committee has received an inquiry concerning the use of a law firm's letterhead in connection with political activity. The letter involved was addressed to members of the police department in a particular community and it contained information describing certain benefits for them if a specific group of officeholders was elected at a coming election.
On the letter there are five names as signers, only one of whom appears listed as a lawyer in the 1971 Lawyers' Diary and Manual, including Bar Directory of New Jersey, and as a partner in the firm on whose stationery the letter was written. At the outset it can be stated that it was very obvious to us that the letter in question was ill-advised and improper. Here we are confronted with former Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Professional Ethics in its Informal Opinion 972 (February 20, 1967) discussed this problem in rather broad language. There it made a distinction where a letterhead listing only the names of lawyers endorsing a candidate for a specific office was involved and stated that such a letter might under the conditions stated be acceptable, but that the publication of letters of lawyers on their firm's stationery endorsing candidates would be improper and in violation of former Canon 27.
The bar's attention is directed to the New Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court which took effect September 13, 1971, as to the use of lawyers' letterheads by lawyers.
In our opinion the letter in question is improper.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1971 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.