Can a lawyer give a newspaper an interview and resume of his practice for a 'father and son businesses' feature column?

Plain-English summary

A father-and-son law partnership was approached by a local weekly newspaper that wanted to interview a member of the firm for a new feature column featuring "father and son businesses." The lawyer asked whether he could grant the interview and give a resume of his educational background, his years in practice, the corporate entities and clients he had represented, a similar resume of his son, and the fact that they had formed a partnership and moved their offices to the municipality. The publication was unsolicited by the attorneys.

The Committee held that a photograph of a lawyer accompanied by a summary of his educational background, years in practice, and corporate entities and clients represented has the appearance of solicitation of business by advertising, which must be condemned as a violation of Canon 27, because the public's attention is drawn to the lawyer in connection with his profession in an unusual manner. It added that the fact that the column might be a news item did not lessen its advertising feature, quoting authority that a law firm may not acquiesce in the publication of a laudatory history of the firm. It concluded that the lawyer's cooperation and acquiescence in the proposed feature column would be a violation of Canon 27.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 participate in the newspaper's feature column?

A: No. The Committee held that cooperating in a feature presenting his photograph and a resume of his practice would violate Canon 27 as advertising.

Q: Did it matter that the article was unsolicited and ran as news?

A: No. The Committee said the fact that the column might be a news item did not lessen its advertising feature, and the lawyer's acquiescence still violated Canon 27.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, which prohibited lawyer advertising and solicitation, drawing on ABA opinions treating laudatory profiles of a lawyer or firm as improper. 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:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinions 43 (1931) and 244 (1942); Decision 79: profiles and laudatory histories of a lawyer or firm as improper advertising

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 35: Lawyer in a Manufacturer's "Article"
• 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/acp38-1.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 38

Advertising
Unsolicited Newspaper Feature

This inquiry involves a father and son partnership.

A local weekly newspaper published in the municipality, where the partnership practices law, requested an interview with a member of the firm, for the purpose of a new feature column which the newspaper intends to publish. The column will, from time to time, feature "father and son businesses."

The inquiry is:

Whether or not I would be permitted to grant the interview and give them a resume of my educational background, the years I have been practicing law, and the various corporate entities I have represented, and clients I have represented, and a similar resume of my son's educational background and of the facts that we formed a partnership and moved from another municipality to the one that we are now in, where we established our offices as a partnership.

We are advised that the proposed publication was unsolicited by the attorneys involved.

A photograph of a lawyer accompanied by a summary of his educational background, the years engaged in practicing law, and the various corporate entities represented, together with clients represented, has the appearance of a solicitation of business by advertising which must be condemned as a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27. The attention of the public is drawn in an unusual manner to the lawyer in connection with his profession. A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 43 (1931).

The A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 244 (1942) states:

Canons of Legal Ethics can never receive the wholehearted acceptance and support of the Bar, which is essential to their enforcement, unless they be interpreted in accordance with their spirit and intent, in order to prevent the abuses at which they were obviously aimed, as distinguished from a technical or literal construction which could have them cover practices not generally regarded by the Bar as inherently improper or unethical.

The fact that the newspaper column in question may be a news item, does not lessen its advertising feature.

The American Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Decision 79, states:

A law firm may not acquiesce in the publication by a magazine of a laudatory history of the firm, or allow itself to be listed as counsel for a community chest.

It is the opinion of this Committee that the cooperation and acquiescence of the lawyer in the publication of the proposed "feature column" would be a violation of Canon 27.