May a practicing lawyer also run an abstract business in the same county and share office quarters with the abstract company?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether it is proper for a practicing attorney in a particular county to engage in the abstract business in that county and to occupy the same quarters as the abstract company.

The Committee answered that no rule of the Oklahoma Bar covers the question, and no principle of professional ethics confines a lawyer to the practice of law to the exclusion of other business. It cautioned, however, that the abstract business is so interrelated with the practice of law that it would be most difficult to engage in both ethically. Quoting Opinion No. 76, it restated that although a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in a lay business while practicing law, he must conduct that business with due observance of the standards required of a lawyer, must not use it as a means of obtaining law business, and must not use his bar membership to obtain lay business, avoiding both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The Committee therefore could not say the arrangement violated any rule or principle, but it was a practice the Committee did not approve, particularly where the attorney proposed to office in the same quarters used by the abstract company.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The concerns about a lawyer's outside business and law-related ancillary services are now addressed in the modern rules on professional independence and law-related services (Model Rule 5.7 and its Oklahoma counterpart). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did any rule forbid a lawyer from running an abstract business?

A: No. The Committee found no rule of the Oklahoma Bar covering the question and no ethics principle confining a lawyer to law practice to the exclusion of other business.

Q: So why did the Committee disapprove it?

A: It found the abstract business so interrelated with law practice that conducting both ethically would be most difficult, and it especially disapproved sharing the same quarters as the abstract company.

Q: What conditions did the cited opinion attach to outside business?

A: Per Opinion No. 76, the lawyer must observe lawyer standards in the lay business, must not use it to get law business, and must not use bar membership to get lay business, avoiding both impropriety and its appearance.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not turn on a numbered rule. It applied the general principle, drawn from Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 76, that a lawyer may engage in a lay business only with due observance of the standards required of a lawyer and without using either calling to feed the other. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 76 (Vol. 1, Advisory Opinions, p. 140): a lawyer may engage in a lay business while practicing law only with due observance of lawyer standards, and may not use one calling to obtain business for the other.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 141: Lawyer on retainer to usurious loan businesses
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 48: Lawyer writing fire insurance while practicing
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 140: Title examiner later fixing the same title for the seller

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-145/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 12, 1950

QUERY

Is it proper for a practicing attorney in a particular county to engage in the abstract business in that county and to occupy the same quarters as occupied by the abstract company?

ANSWER

There is no rule of the Oklahoma Bar Association covering this question, nor is there any principle of professional ethics which confines a lawyer to the practice of the law to the exclusion of other business. The abstract business, however, is so interrelated with the practice of law, that it would be most difficult for one ethically to engage in both. As previously stated in Opinion No. 76, page 140, Volume 1, Advisory Opinions of the State Bar of Oklahoma, we believe:

"Though a lawyer is not prohibited by any accepted standard from engaging in a lay business while practicing law, he must conduct such lay business with due observance of the standards of conduct required of him as a lawyer; and that in conducting such a lay business, he must not use it as a means of obtaining law business, nor must he use the fact that he is a member of the bar as a means to obtain lay business. In this connection the Board restates what it has repeated occasion to state, 'a member of the bar should not only avoid all impropriety, but should likewise avoid the appearance of impropriety'."

Therefore, while the Committee cannot say that engaging in the abstract business under the circumstances set forth above, is in violation of any rule or principle of professional ethics, it is a practice of which the Committee does not approve. Particularly is this true where the attorney proposes to have his office in the same quarters utilized by the abstract company.