What must a lawyer do when his name keeps appearing in law lists that the bar has not approved as reputable?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer reported that he had in the past carried a card in several law lists and, through carelessness, had neglected to have the listings stopped, so his name appeared in all the 1936 books and would probably appear in some 1937 books, the forms for which were made up in 1936. He asked what he should do.

The Board answered on the assumption that the law lists had not been approved as reputable within the meaning of Rule 45 as amended (effective July 1, 1936) and had been published and circulated after July 1, 1936. On those facts it was the inquirer's duty to promptly bring about the discontinuance of the advertising and solicitation of business so far as possible, citing ABA Opinion 62 and the last paragraph of amended Rule 45, which provides that a member who permits his name or card to continue to be published, after notice of the publication, in a publication not approved as reputable, is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Board directed that publishers who had carried his name or card without consent be notified in positive terms to discontinue the listing in future publications, whether the forms were made up or not. It added that if publishers of unapproved lists continued to carry members' names after notice, or other unapproved publishers carried members' names, the members should notify the Secretary of the State Bar; such publishers might be enjoined by the State Bar on the theory that the listing constitutes advertising and solicitation of business contrary to law and to the ethics of the profession.

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 blanket treatment of law-list listings as improper advertising and solicitation has since been narrowed by constitutional decisions on lawyer advertising beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977). Subsequent rule amendments and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was it unprofessional to be listed in a law list the bar had not approved?

A: Under Rule 45 as amended, a member who permitted his name or card to continue in a publication not approved as reputable, after notice of the publication, was guilty of unprofessional conduct.

Q: What was the lawyer supposed to do about a listing he had not stopped in time?

A: The opinion held it was his duty to promptly bring about the discontinuance so far as possible, and to notify the publishers in positive terms to stop listing him in future publications, whether the forms were made up or not.

Q: What if a publisher kept listing members after being told to stop?

A: The opinion directed members to notify the Secretary of the State Bar, and observed that such publishers might be enjoined by the State Bar as carrying improper advertising and solicitation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 45 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended effective July 1, 1936, governing law-list and directory listings and approval of publications as reputable, and adopted ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 62. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 45 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended eff. July 1, 1936): a member who permits his name or card to continue to be published, after notice, in a publication not approved as reputable is guilty of unprofessional conduct.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Op. 62: a lawyer's duty regarding listings in publications not approved as reputable.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 95: A card in a directory circulated to laymen
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 105: Publishing professional cards in newspapers
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 98: A card in an insurance trade magazine

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-120/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted September 24, 1936

The Board is in receipt of the following:

"I have in the past carried a card in several law lists. Through carelessness I have neglected to notify them to cease carrying the card, and my name appears in all of the 1936 books and will probably appear in some of the 1937 books, the forms for which are made up in 1936. Kindly advise me what I should do in regard to the matter."

In response:

Assuming that the law lists referred to have not been approved as reputable within the purview of Rule 45 as amended, (effective July 1, 1936), and that they have been published and circulated subsequent to July 1, 1936, it is the duty of the inquirer promptly to bring about the discontinuance of the advertising and solicitation of business so far as possible. See Opinion 62 A.B.A. Committee on Professional Ethics. See also the last paragraph of Rule 45, as amended, which provides that "a member of the bar who * * * permits his name or card to be continued to be published after notice of the publication thereof, in a publication which is not approved as reputable, is guilty of unprofessional conduct."

The publishers who have heretofore carried the name or card of the inquirer without his consent should be notified in positive terms to discontinue the listing of the inquirer in future publications, whether the forms are made up or not.

Should publishers of unapproved lists or directories continue to carry the name or cards of members of the bar of Oklahoma after having been notified to discontinue, or should other publishers of unapproved lists carry the names or cards of members of the bar, the members whose names are carried in those publications should notify the Secretary of the State Bar of the facts.

It is conceivable that those publishers may be enjoined by the State Bar, on the theory that the listing constitutes advertising of those members of the bar and the solicitation of business for them, contrary to law and to the ethics of the profession as declared by the State Bar of Oklahoma.