What reinstatement announcements may a previously suspended lawyer send, and to whom?

Plain-English summary

Lawyers who had been suspended from practice for solicitation and were subsequently reinstated asked what announcements, letters, or notices they could send about their reinstatement, and whether they could send them to five groups: former clients, lawyers, friends and acquaintances, people in the community, and the public generally.

The committee, assuming the inquiry was made in good faith to avoid repeating the offense for which the lawyers had been suspended, quoted Canon 27, which makes it unprofessional to solicit professional employment by circulars, advertisements, touters, or personal communications not warranted by personal relations, while allowing the customary use of simple professional cards. It concluded that a simple announcement containing the lawyers' name, address, and telephone number, together with a short statement that they are resuming the practice of law, would be proper. Whether the announcement could go to any of the five classes depended on whether the lawyers genuinely had "personal relations" with persons in that class. The committee said it appeared they would not have personal relations with "people in the community" or the "public generally," and that as to lawyers, they could send the notice to lawyers generally because Canon 46 permits a brief dignified notice of a specialized legal service to that class. It added that any doubt about whether the lawyers had personal relations with the recipients should be construed against the senders.

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. Canons 27 and 46, governing solicitation and announcements, belong to that superseded canon-era code, and their flat restrictions no longer reflect current law: the United States Supreme Court held in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350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 announcements and targeted communications 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What could a reinstated lawyer's announcement contain?

A: The committee said a simple announcement giving the lawyer's name, address, and telephone number, with a short statement that they are resuming the practice of law, would be proper.

Q: To whom could the announcement be sent?

A: It could go to those with whom the lawyers genuinely had personal relations, and to lawyers generally under Canon 46, but the committee said it appeared they would not have personal relations with people in the community or the public generally.

Q: How should a lawyer resolve doubt about whether a recipient counts as a "personal relation"?

A: The committee said any doubt about whether the lawyers had personal relations with those to whom they were sending the announcements should be construed against the senders.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, on solicitation and the limits of communications "warranted by personal relations," and Canon 46, permitting a brief dignified notice of a specialized legal service to other lawyers. 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): bars solicitation by communications not warranted by personal relations; permits simple professional cards.
• Canon 46: permits a brief dignified notice of a specialized legal service to other lawyers.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 155: Newspaper professional cards as solicitation
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 157: Letterhead touting members' former public offices
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 124: Professional card in a city directory

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-167/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 10, 1953

QUERY

Lawyers who were formerly suspended from the practice of law and who have been subsequently reinstated now make inquiry as to what type of announcements, letters, or notices, if any, they may send out with reference to their reinstatement, and whether or not they can properly send said announcements, etc., to any or all of the following:

1. former clients

2. lawyers

3. friends and acquaintances

4. people in the community

5. public generally.

ANSWER

The lawyers now making the inquiry were formerly members of the Bar and were suspended from the practice for solicitation. The assumption is that they make the above inquiry in good faith and to avoid committing the same offense for which they were previously suspended.

Canon 27 reads in part:

“It is unprofessional to solicit professional employment by circulars, advertisements, through touters or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations. …; but the customary use of simple professional cards is not improper.”

We think that a simple announcement containing the lawyers’ name, address and telephone number together with a short statement that they are resuming the practice of law, to be proper. As to whether or not they could send it to any one of the five classes set out above, depends upon whether or not they really have “personal relations” with any one in said classes. It would appear to us that they would not have “personal relations” with “people in the community” and the “public generally.” As to lawyers, they could send it to lawyers generally for Canon 46 provides that a brief dignified notice of a specialized legal service may be sent to that class.

Any doubt in the minds of the senders of the announcements as to whether or not they have “personal relations” with those persons to whom they are sending the announcements should be construed against the lawyers sending the same.