Is it a breach of legal ethics for a lawyer to run a professional card in a newspaper announcing the lawyer's name, practice, and office hours?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether two newspaper cards were a breach of professional ethics: one announcing a firm's name and that a named lawyer would be in a town every Saturday afternoon at stated office hours, and another giving a lawyer's name, "Attorney-at-Law," "General Practice," office location, and phone number.

The committee answered that such a card, appearing in a newspaper or similar publication and paid for by the lawyer in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, became a solicitation of business by advertising that the committee said offended the traditions and lowered the tone of the profession, and was therefore condemned as violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics. It explained that one of the self-imposed prohibitions distinguishing a profession from a business is that members do not advertise for or otherwise solicit professional employment, and that inserting the card drew the public's attention to the named attorney in an unusual manner, the only purpose of which was to induce prospective clients to give him employment. It cited a series of ABA opinions and noted that attorneys engaging in such conduct had been disciplined.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1951, 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 condemnation of lawyer advertising stated here no longer reflects current law: the United States Supreme Court held in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), that categorical bans on truthful lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, and lawyer advertising and solicitation are now governed by very different rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 newspaper card improper under the opinion?

A: The committee treated a card paid for by the lawyer, directly or indirectly, as a solicitation of business by advertising, the only purpose of which was to induce prospective clients to give the lawyer employment, and it condemned that as a violation of the Canons.

Q: Did the opinion distinguish a profession from a business on this point?

A: Yes. The committee stated that one of the self-imposed prohibitions distinguishing the profession from a business is that members do not advertise for or otherwise solicit professional employment.

Q: Did the opinion mention consequences for lawyers who advertised this way?

A: Yes. The committee noted that attorneys who engaged in such conduct had been disciplined, citing a California disciplinary decision.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which at the time prohibited a lawyer from advertising for or soliciting professional employment. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation. It cited ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinions Nos. 69, 11, 24, 123, 182, 203, 251, 260, and 276.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons of Professional Ethics (ABA, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): the prohibition on advertising for or soliciting professional employment.

Cases:

• Barton v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818, attorney disciplined for advertising conduct

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinions Nos. 69, 11, 24, 123, 182, 203, 251, 260, and 276

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 105: Publishing professional cards in newspapers
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 133: Revised professional card in a city directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 132: Postal cards advertising brief-writing to other lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-155/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 29, 1951

QUERY

Is it a breach of professional ethics for lawyers to run in a newspaper, cards which read:

1. “John Doe of Roe. Roe & Doe, Attorneys-at-Law, Blank, Okla.

Will be in Blank every Saturday afternoon from noon to 5 P.M., with offices in the B. Building.”

and

2. “Richard Roe

Attorney-at-Law

General Practice

First Floor Grand Hotel

Phone 22220 Blank, Okla.”

ANSWER

Such a card appearing in a newspaper or other similar publication, if paid for by the lawyer, in whole or in part, either directly or indirectly, becomes a solicitation of business by advertising which offends the traditions and lowers the tone of our profession, and therefore is condemned as violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

One of the self-imposed prohibitions which distinguishes the professional from a business, is that the members of the profession do not advertise for or otherwise solicit professional employment.

By the insertion of the card in a paper the attention of the public is drawn in an unusual manner to the profession of the named attorney. Obviously the only reason for putting such a card in a paper is to induce prospective clients to give him employment as their attorney. See opinions Nos. 69_11_24_123_182_ 203_251_260 and 276, American Bar Association.

Attorneys who have engaged in such conduct have been disciplined. Barton v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818.