Could a lawyer have a professional card published in a newspaper, even free of charge, without violating the ethics rules?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer enclosed a newspaper clipping containing the professional cards of six lawyers and asked whether publishing such cards conflicted with legal ethics, noting that some, including his own, were published without charge.

The Board answered that it did. It quoted Rule 29 as amended by order of the Supreme Court on February 25, 1936: the use of simple introductory cards in the ordinary course of practice was not improper, and such cards could state the lawyer's name (and associates' names), profession, address, telephone number, and special branch of practice, but solicitation by distributing or publishing cards, other than publication permitted by Rule 45, was unprofessional. Reading the amended rule, the Board concluded that a card could be published only in a reputable law list or directory approved by the Board, so publishing cards in newspapers, "either with or without charge, is interdicted."

Assuming the card had not been inserted at the inquirer's instigation, the Board quoted Advisory Opinion 74: it is improper both to cause the insertion of the cards and to permit their continued publication after learning of it, "because a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1936, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The flat bar on publishing lawyer cards described here predates the U.S. Supreme Court's commercial-speech decisions, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), that struck down blanket prohibitions on truthful lawyer advertising. The rules cited here, Rules 29 and 45, belong to that superseded canon-era code. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer publish a professional card in a newspaper in 1936?

A: No. The opinion held that under amended Rule 29, cards could be published only in an approved law list or directory, so newspaper publication, with or without charge, was prohibited.

Q: Did it matter that the card ran free of charge?

A: No. The opinion stated the publication of cards in newspapers "either with or without charge, is interdicted."

Q: Was a lawyer responsible if someone else ran his card?

A: The opinion, quoting Advisory Opinion 74, said it was improper both to cause the insertion and to permit continued publication after learning of it, because a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct as amended in 1936, which permitted simple introductory cards but treated solicitation by publishing cards (except as Rule 45 allowed) as unprofessional, and Rule 45, which governed publication of cards in approved law lists. Both were drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 29 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended Feb. 25, 1936): simple introductory cards are proper, but solicitation by publishing cards, except as Rule 45 permits, is unprofessional.
• Rule 45 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): publication of cards in approved law lists.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 74 (January 1936)

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 12: Answering legal questions on the radio
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 20: Trust-company will solicitation and a lawyer officer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-105/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted February 28, 1936

The Board is in receipt of the following inquiry:

"Inclosed find clipping from one of our local daily newspapers containing cards of six lawyers. I should like an opinion upon whether publication of these professional cards conflicts with legal ethics.

Does it make any difference that these cards are published without charge. Some of them are, at least my own is."

In response:

On February 25, 1936, by order of the Supreme Court, upon the suggestion of the Board of Governors, Rule 29, with reference to the publications of cards, was amended to read as follows:

"The use (but not publication except as provided in Rule 45) of simple introductory cards in the ordinary course of the practice of law is not improper. Such cards may, with propriety, contain a statement of the lawyer's name (and those of his lawyer associates), his profession, address, telephone number, and special branch, if any, of the profession practiced by him.

The solicitation of business by the distribution of cards or circulars, or by their publication, other than the publication of cards as permitted by Rule 45, or by other advertisement or by personal communication or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional."

By the plain provisions of the rule as amended, it is not permissible for a member of the bar to publish a card in any publication except a reputable law list or directory approved by the Board of Governors. Therefore, the publication of cards in newspapers, etc., either with or without charge, is interdicted.

It is assumed from the inquiry under consideration that the card referred to was not inserted at the instigation of the inquirer. The following language of Advisory Opinion 74 (January 1936, Bar Journal) is pertinent:

"It is improper for the members of the bar (a) to cause the insertion of the cards in the column or (b) to permit the continued publication of the cards after knowledge thereof. The first is expressly interdicted by Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the second is a clear violation of the spirit of the rule because a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself."