Can a lawyer pay to have his photograph and biographical description published in a newspaper feature?
Oklahoma Bar Ethics Opinion 15: A Lawyer Paying to Have His Photograph Published
Short answer: The Board of Governors concluded that a lawyer could not pay to have his photograph and biographical description published in a newspaper feature, adopting ABA Opinion 43's holding that a lawyer's paid-for photograph with his name, address, and vocation is solicitation of business by advertising condemned under the rule corresponding to ABA Canon 27.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Oklahoma Bar Association's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
A newspaper of large circulation proposed to publish pictures or likenesses of community members, with descriptive statements about each person's birth, general inclinations, and occupation, with each subject paying a sum said to represent only the cost of publication. A bar member asked whether a lawyer could properly arrange to have his picture so published.
The Board of Governors observed that Rule 29 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct was identical to Section 27 of the ABA canons. It then adopted the answer the ABA's ethics committee had given to a similar inquiry in ABA Opinion No. 43: a photograph of a lawyer accompanied by his name, address, and vocation is not a professional card, and its publication, if paid for by the lawyer directly or indirectly, becomes a solicitation of business by advertising that must be condemned under Canon 27. The ABA reasoned that what distinguishes an advertisement from a news or literary article is that the subject pays for it, and the particular item of cost the payment covers is immaterial. The Board concluded the ABA's view was correct and adopted it.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1932, 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 rule number cited here, Rule 29, belongs to that superseded canon-era code and does not correspond to the current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Restrictions on lawyer advertising and solicitation of the kind applied here were later substantially limited by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and subsequent First Amendment decisions; Oklahoma Ethics Opinion 310 (1998) cautions that advertising and solicitation opinions predating those changes may be outdated and should not be relied upon to the extent they are inconsistent with current law. 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 to have his photo published in a newspaper feature?
A: The opinion concluded no. Adopting ABA Opinion 43, it held that a lawyer's paid-for photograph with his name, address, and vocation is solicitation by advertising condemned under the rule corresponding to ABA Canon 27.
Q: Did it matter that the payment supposedly only covered the cost of publication?
A: No. The opinion, following ABA Opinion 43, treated the particular item of cost the payment covered as immaterial; the fact that the subject paid for the publicity made it an advertisement.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Rule 29 of the then-current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which the Board noted was identical to ABA Canon 27 on advertising and solicitation, and adopted the reasoning of ABA Opinion No. 43. The blanket prohibition on paid publicity that the opinion applied no longer reflects current law after the commercial-speech decisions discussed in the currency note above.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 29 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct), identical to ABA Canon 27: solicitation of business by advertisement is unprofessional.
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion No. 43 (paid-for lawyer photograph is solicitation by advertising)
See also
- Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 3: Advertising Brief Services
- Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 4: Soliciting Collection Work
- ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites
Source
- Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-15/
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Adopted January 22, 1932
The Board of Governors of The State Bar of Oklahoma is in receipt of the following request from a member of the State Bar for an advisory opinion:
"…….., Oklahoma.
January 6, 1932.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
State Bar of Oklahoma,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
Gentlemen:
A newspaper of large circulation proposes from day to day to publish pictures or drawings of likenesses of citizens of the community in which it is issued, connecting therewith descriptive statements as to birth, general inclinations and the present occupations of such citizens. Each person whose picture, etc., is published is to pay therefor a certain sum, which sum is said to represent only the cost of publication.
Some question has arisen in the minds of certain members of the Bar as to the propriety of a member of the Bar procuring his picture, etc., to be thus published and an advisory opinion on the matter will be appreciated."
In response:
Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Oklahoma is identical to Section 27 of the canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association.
In answer to a similar inquiry the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the American Bar Association, (Opinion No. 43) held:
"A photograph of a lawyer, accompanied by a statement of his name, address, and vocation is not a professional card and its publication, if paid for by the lawyer, either directly or indirectly, becomes a solicitation of business by advertising which must be condemned as a violation of canon 27. The attention of the public is drawn in an unusual manner to the lawyer in connection with his profession. One of the features which distinguishes an advertisement from a news or literary article is the fact that its publication is paid for by the one receiving the benefit of the publicity and the amount of the payment or what particular item of cost the payment is supposed to cover are immaterial."
The Board of Governors is of the opinion that the opinion of the Committee of the American Bar Association on Professional Ethics and Grievances is correct, and adopts it as its opinion.