Can a lawyer list his name in bold or distinctive type in a telephone directory?

Plain-English summary

After the April 1936 State Bar Journal published a Los Angeles Bar Association resolution condemning the listing of lawyers' names in bold type in the classified section of telephone directories, some Oklahoma lawyers who had been so listed raised the propriety of continuing the practice with the telephone company, and both they and the company asked the Board of Governors for its view.

The Board quoted the Los Angeles resolution, which declared that publishing an attorney's name in a telephone or other lay directory in a type style or size different from that usually employed is a form of advertising and therefore improper. That resolution had relied on ABA Opinion 53, which the Board also quoted: a lawyer's name listed in a classified telephone directory in the usual manner and in the same style and size of type as other names is not advertising, and paying for such a listing does not alter its character; but where a lawyer pays to have his name published in a type style or size different from that of other lawyers, the listing becomes a form of advertising and must be condemned. The Board concurred with both the Los Angeles Bar Association and the ABA committee, held that listing members' names in bold-faced type in telephone directories is interdicted by Rule 29 as a species of advertising, and disapproved the practice.

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 ban on distinctive directory listings as improper advertising 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer pay for a bold-type listing in the phone book?

A: No. The opinion held that a bold-faced listing, distinct from other lawyers' listings, is a form of advertising interdicted by Rule 29 and disapproved.

Q: Was an ordinary telephone listing improper?

A: No. Quoting ABA Opinion 53, the Board treated an ordinary listing in the same style and size as other lawyers as not advertising, and said paying for such a listing did not change its character.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits advertising and solicitation, and adopted the reasoning of the Los Angeles Bar Association resolution and ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 53. It 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): prohibits advertising and solicitation of professional employment.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Op. 53: an ordinary telephone-directory listing is not advertising; a distinctive type listing paid for by the lawyer becomes improper advertising.
• Los Angeles Bar Association, Board of Trustees resolution (April 1936 State Bar Journal): distinctive-type directory listings are a form of advertising and improper.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 124: A professional card in a city directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 95: A card in a directory circulated to laymen
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 120: A lawyer's name continued in unapproved law lists

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-129/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 30, 1936

Since the publication, in the April, 1936, State Bar Journal, of the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Bar Association condemning the insertion of names of members of the bar in bold type in the classified section of telephone directories certain members of the bar of this state, who have heretofore had their names listed in such manner, have raised with the telephone company the question of the propriety of continuing so to do; thereupon such members and the telephone company requested the Board of Governors to give its view upon the subject.

In response:

The Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Bar Association in the resolution referred to resolved that:

"The publication in telephone and other lay directories of the name of an attorney in type of a different style or size from that usually employed in such directories is a form of advertising and is therefore improper."

In the resolution the Board of Trustees referred to Opinion number 53 of the American Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances. In that opinion it was said:

"As a matter of public convenience, it is desirable that a lawyer have his name listed in the classified telephone directory which the telephone companies authorize. So long as the lawyer's name is listed in such a directory in the usual manner and in the same style and size of type as other names are listed, such listing is not advertising, as there is nothing which will particularly distinguish the name of one lawyer from that of another. Payment for listing of this nature does not alter its character or carry any implication of impropriety. A lawyer who is not a telephone subscriber, but who uses the telephone of the firm with which he is connected or the telephone of some other subscriber, must usually pay for the listing of his name in telephone directories. The listing of a lawyer's name in such directory assumes quite a different character which he pays for having his name published in type of a different style or size from that in which the names of other lawyers are listed. In that event, it becomes a form of advertising, and a lawyer's conduct in causing it to be so published must be condemned."

The Board concurs in the views of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Bar Association and of the Committee of the American Bar Association; and is of the opinion that the practice referred to, i. e., the listing of names of members of the bar in bold faced type in telephone directories, is interdicted by Rule 29 of the rules of professional conduct as a species of advertising. It is accordingly disapproved of.