Can a lawyer who is also a title insurance agent advertise that fact in the yellow pages under both the title-agent and lawyer headings?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer authorized to issue title insurance for a title insurance company asked whether he could list that fact under the "title company and agent" heading in the yellow pages, and whether his "lawyers" listing could mention his authority to issue title insurance. The committee answered both questions in the affirmative.

It began from the general rule, following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), that the Code permits a lawyer to advertise information relevant to the process of lawyer selection or bearing on his competence to serve as counsel. The principal limits are in DR 2-101(A) and (B), which bar statements that are false, deceptive, misleading, or that contain puffery, self-laudation, or unverifiable claims of quality, and DR 2-101(D), which requires advertising to educate the public about legal needs and provide information relevant to selecting counsel (quoting N.Y. State 487 (1978)). The committee then relied on its prior dual-practice opinions: a lawyer may maintain a dual practice as a real estate broker provided he does not solicit employment in violation of any statute or court rule or accept employment resulting from unsolicited advice to seek counsel (N.Y. State 493 (1978)), and a lawyer may maintain a dual practice as a certified public accountant and list both practices on his letterhead or card (N.Y. State 494 (1978)).

The committee concluded it is now settled that a lawyer may have a dual practice and advertise that fact, provided he does not engage in unlawful solicitation, and found its prior opinions dispositive. It noted that it is not the committee's province to decide matters of law, and so offered no opinion on whether the proposed practice would violate Insurance Law section 440, Judiciary Law section 479, or any other legislation or court rule; assuming no violation of law, it found the proposed advertising ethically proper. The questions were answered in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (false or misleading communications now appear at Rule 7.1 and advertising at Rule 7.2). New York's lawyer advertising rules have changed substantially since this opinion. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who is also a title insurance agent advertise that in the yellow pages?

A: Yes. The committee held the lawyer may list the title-agent authority under the "title company and agent" heading and may note it in his "lawyers" listing.

Q: What is the ethical limit on advertising a dual practice?

A: The committee held the advertising must comply with DR 2-101 (no false, deceptive, or misleading statements) and the lawyer must not engage in unlawful solicitation.

Q: Did the committee decide whether this violates any statute?

A: No. The committee said it is not its province to decide questions of law and offered no opinion on Insurance Law section 440, Judiciary Law section 479, or other statutes.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101 (publicity and advertising), read against the constitutional backdrop of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and the committee's prior dual-practice opinions. The closest current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.2 (advertising)
• NY DR 2-101(A), (B), (D)

Statutes:

• Insurance Law section 440; Judiciary Law section 479 (noted, not decided)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising as protected commercial speech

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 487 (1978): limits of permissible advertising
• N.Y. State 493 (1978): dual practice as a real estate broker
• N.Y. State 494 (1978): dual practice as a certified public accountant

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 576: Real estate attorney acting as a title insurance agent
• NY State Bar Op. 563: Advertising a discount from customary fees
• NY State Bar Op. 559: Law school alumni directory of graduates

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-556/