May a lawyer pay to publish his photograph, identified with his name and profession, in a newspaper or magazine?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether it is a breach of professional ethics for a lawyer to pay for or contribute to the cost of a photograph for publication, or of the publication of his photograph, with or without biographical data, but with identification of the subject as a lawyer.

The Committee concluded that a photograph of a lawyer, with or without biographical data but accompanied by his name and vocation, is not a professional card; therefore its making and publication, if paid for by the lawyer in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, becomes a solicitation of business by advertising that must be condemned as violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics. By that means the public's attention is drawn in an unusual manner to the subject's activities, directly in connection with his profession. The Committee distinguished such an advertisement from a news or literary article, identifying the lawyer's payment, in whole or part, for the publication or the cost of the photograph or plate as a principal distinguishing characteristic. It cited Oklahoma Opinions Nos. 15 and 92 and ABA Opinion No. 43.

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 modern rules permit much lawyer advertising the Canons forbade. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What made the published photograph improper?

A: The lawyer's paying for it. The Committee held that paying, in whole or part, to publish a photograph identified with his name and vocation turned it into solicitation by advertising.

Q: How did the Committee distinguish a legitimate news article?

A: By the payment. A principal distinguishing characteristic, it said, was whether the lawyer paid in whole or part for the publication or the cost of the photograph or plate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canons' advertising and solicitation restraints, treating a paid, self-identifying photograph as advertising rather than a professional card or a news item. It relied on Oklahoma Advisory Opinions Nos. 15 and 92 and ABA Opinion No. 43. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Canon 27 (Canons of Professional Ethics): restrictions on advertising and solicitation.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinions Nos. 15 and 92.
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 43.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 146: Attorney advertising his casualty-adjuster services
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 143: Law list of an auto association recommending attorneys
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 142: Newspaper articles commenting on court decisions

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-150/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 8, 1950

QUERY

Is it a breach of professional ethics for a lawyer to pay for or contribute to the cost of a photograph for publication or of the publication of his photograph, with or without biographical data, but with identification of the subject of the photograph as a lawyer?

ANSWER

A photograph of a lawyer, with or without accompanying biographical data, but accompanied by a statement of his name and vocation, is not a professional card, and therefore its making and publication, if paid for by the lawyer, in whole or in part, either directly or indirectly, becomes a solicitation of business by advertising which must be condemned as violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics. By the means referred to the attention of the public is drawn in an unusual manner to the activities of the subject of the photograph and directly in connection with his profession. An advertisement of this type is to be distinguished from a news or literary article, and one of the principal distinguishing characteristics is the payment by the lawyer, in whole or in part, for the publication or of the cost of the photograph or plate. See Opinions Nos. 15 and 92, State Bar of Oklahoma; Opinion No. 43, American Bar Association.