May a practicing lawyer who also works as an insurance claims adjuster advertise his adjuster services by pamphlet to insurance companies?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer in general practice who also specialized in investigating and adjusting casualty claims for insurance companies, work that occupied a major part of his time, proposed to advertise his adjuster services by a pamphlet sent to the different insurance companies. He asked whether advertising those services would violate the Canons of Legal Ethics.

By majority, the Committee concluded the proposed advertising would not be proper. Because the two occupations are so closely associated and affiliated that solicitation of business as an adjuster may readily become a means of soliciting business for the lawyer, the profession would be subject to criticism for unprofessional conduct; in his adjustment business he should be subject to the same advertising restrictions as an attorney. The Committee noted that Advisory Opinion No. 31 reached the same conclusion.

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 advertising restraints applied here predate Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which held that categorical bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, and the rules on lawyer advertising and law-related services have since been substantially rewritten. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Why couldn't he advertise his adjuster work?

A: The Committee found the adjusting and law callings so closely affiliated that soliciting adjuster business could readily become solicitation of law business, exposing the profession to criticism.

Q: What standard governed his adjusting business?

A: The Committee said that, in his adjustment business, he should be subject to the same advertising restrictions as an attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canons of Legal Ethics' advertising and solicitation restraints to a lawyer's affiliated non-law business, treating the adjusting work as subject to the same advertising limits as law practice. It relied on Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 31. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 31 (Vol. 1, Advisory Opinions, p. 66): same conclusion as to advertising an affiliated non-law business.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 147: Practicing lawyer also running an insurance agency
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 145: Practicing lawyer also running an abstract business
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 132: Postal cards advertising brief-writing to other lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-146/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 14, 1950

THE FACTS

An attorney engaged in the general practice of law and specializing in the investigation and adjustment of casualty claims for insurance companies, which latter undertaking occupies a major portion of his time, proposes to advertise his services as an adjuster by the medium of a pamphlet sent to the different insurance companies. This lawyer desires to know whether advertising his services as an adjuster would violate the Canons of Legal Ethics.

QUERY

Would this practicing attorney advertising his services as an adjuster, under the above stated circumstances, violate the Canons of Legal Ethics?

ANSWER

It is the majority opinion of the Committee that the proposed advertising would not be proper. Since the two occupations are so closely associated and affiliated that the solicitation of business as an adjuster may readily become the means of solicitation of business for the lawyer, the profession would be subject to criticism for unprofessional conduct. He should in his adjustment business be subject to the same restrictions as to advertising as is an attorney. The committee points out that Opinion No. 31, Vol. I, p. 66, Advisory Opinions of the State Bar of Oklahoma, reaches the same conclusion.