May a lawyer advertise income tax return preparation in a newspaper if the ad omits that he is a lawyer?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer could ethically run a newspaper notice advising the public that he prepares income tax returns, giving his name and address but omitting the fact that he is a lawyer.

The committee answered that running such a notice would violate Canon 27 and is therefore unethical. It adopted ABA Opinion 234, which held that soliciting employment in the making out of income tax returns constitutes solicitation of professional employment contrary to Canon 27, even where the lawyer's name does not appear in the advertisement. The committee, quoting that opinion, observed that some businesses laymen engage in are so closely associated with the practice of law that their solicitation may readily become indirect solicitation for a lawyer associated with them, that the proper making out of income tax returns often directly involves the rendition of legal services, and that an advertisement that does not confine itself to the non-legal phases would inevitably make the advertising operation a soliciting feeder to the lawyer's practice, of which the lawyer becomes the beneficiary, in violation of Canon 27.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1953, 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. Canon 27's flat treatment of advertising and solicitation 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 ancillary-business marketing are governed by different rules today. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 it matter that the ad left out that the advertiser was a lawyer?

A: No. The committee, adopting ABA Opinion 234, concluded that soliciting income-tax-return work violates Canon 27 even where the lawyer's name does not appear, because tax-return preparation is closely associated with the practice of law.

Q: Why was advertising tax-return preparation treated as soliciting law business?

A: The committee reasoned that the proper making out of income tax returns often directly involves legal services, so an advertisement not confined to the non-legal phases would make the operation a soliciting feeder to the lawyer's practice, of which the lawyer becomes the beneficiary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which barred solicitation of professional employment, including indirect solicitation through closely associated businesses. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): the bar on solicitation of professional employment, including indirect solicitation.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 234, advertising income tax return preparation as solicitation under Canon 27
• ABA Opinions Nos. 57, 233, 260, 269, and 272

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 146: Attorney advertising his casualty adjuster services
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 157: Letterhead touting members' former public offices
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 155: Newspaper professional cards as solicitation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-164/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted January 14, 1953

QUERY

Can a lawyer ethically run a notice in a newspaper advising the public that he prepares income tax returns, and giving his name and address but omitting the fact that he is a lawyer?

ANSWER

The running of such a notice would be a violation of Canon 27, and therefore unethical. In the American Bar Association’s Opinion No. 234 it was held that soliciting employment in the “making out of income tax returns” constitutes solicitation of professional employment contrary to Canon 27, even though the lawyer’s name did not appear in the advertisement. In that opinion they referred to related phases of the question and point out in the Opinion 57,

“Some businesses in which laymen engage are so closely associated with the practice of law that their solicitation of business may readily become a means of indirect solicitation of business for any lawyer that is associated with them.”

Said Opinion points out the fact that a layman can lawfully render certain service does not necessarily mean that it would not be professional service when rendered by a lawyer. The Opinion goes on to say:

“In many instances the proper ‘making out’ of income tax returns will directly involve the rendition of legal services. Lawyers quite generally, as professional employment, in the practice of law, render income tax service to their clients. The style of name ‘Income Tax Service’ under which the association here involved proposes to advertise and solicit contains no suggestion that its service is limited to the non-legal phases of preparing tax returns. This, taken in connection with the use of the lawyer’s office as that of the association, would inevitably result in the association becoming a soliciting feeder to the lawyer’s law practice. The lawyer would thus become the beneficiary of such solicitation and advertising. This would violate Canon 27.”

See also American Bar Association’s Opinions 260 and 233. For a related opinion see American Bar Association’s Opinions 269 and 272.