Can a lawyer allow a product manufacturer to run a legal-periodical 'article,' with his photograph, praising his use of the company's dictation machine?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the propriety of a lawyer permitting the publication of an unsolicited advertisement, described as an "article," in a legal periodical by a nationally known dictation-machine manufacturer, in which the lawyer's efficient and advantageous use of the machine was vividly portrayed by words and photograph.

The Committee held that the lawyer's cooperation and acquiescence in publication of such an "article" would violate Canon 27, citing its companion Opinion 38 and an ABA opinion on the same subject.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 1964, 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, which broadly restricted lawyer advertising; those restrictions were later reshaped by constitutional decisions on lawyer advertising and by RPC 7.1 and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer take part in the manufacturer's "article"?

A: No. The Committee held that cooperating in a manufacturer-sponsored article portraying his use of the product, with words and photograph, would violate Canon 27.

Q: Did labeling it an "article" rather than an advertisement matter?

A: No. The Committee treated the piece as advertising despite its label, consistent with its companion Opinion 38 on a newspaper feature.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, which prohibited lawyer advertising, treating a manufacturer's promotional "article" featuring the lawyer as a form of prohibited advertising. The constitutional and rule landscape governing lawyer advertising changed substantially after this opinion; current New Jersey advertising rules appear in RPC 7.1 and 7.2.

Citations and references

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

• Canon of Professional Ethics 27 (advertising and solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• N.J. ACPE Opinion 38, 87 N.J.L.J. 190 (1964): lawyer in an unsolicited newspaper feature is improper advertising
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 42 (1931)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 38: A Lawyer in a Newspaper Feature Column
• NJ ACPE Op. 122: Newspaper Articles With a By-Line Column
• NJ ACPE Op. 46: Membership and Listing in a Chamber of Commerce Booklet

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp35-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 190
March 26, 1964

OPINION 35

Advertising

This inquiry involves the propriety of an attorney permitting the publication of an unsolicited advertisement described as an "article" in a legal periodical by a nationally known dictation machine manufacturer in which his efficient and advantageous use of the machine is vividly portrayed by words and photograph. In our opinion the cooperation and acquiescence of the lawyer in publication of such an "article" would be in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27. See N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 38, 87 N.J.L.J. 190 (1964), and ABA Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 42 (1931).