May a lawyer mail a monthly printed tax-tips leaflet to his clients and to other persons?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked whether he could mail a printed monthly leaflet titled "Tax-Wise: A Monthly Digest on everyday tax problems in everyday language," carrying his name and office address, that discussed general tax subjects such as bad debts, involuntary sales, demolition, and the "preferred taxpayer." He asked whether it could go to his clients, to other persons, and whether a similar leaflet could be mailed each month.

The committee answered that an attorney may advise his regular clients of new statutes, court decisions, and administrative rulings that affect those clients' interests. It said the communication should be restricted to clients by whom the lawyer is regularly and customarily retained in matters of the kind the communication relates to, and definitely should not be sent to persons or concerns other than regular clients.

As to the leaflet itself, the committee found it inappropriate and concluded it could not be sent to clients or to other persons, because the matters it covered were too general in nature, it did not advise of statutes, recent court decisions, or administrative rulings, and it would have the rather obvious purpose of being an indirect solicitation of business. The committee cited Advisory Opinion 213 of the American Bar Association.

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 indirect 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 communications and solicitation 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer send tax updates to his regular clients?

A: Yes, within limits. The committee said a lawyer may advise his regular clients of new statutes, court decisions, and administrative rulings affecting their interests, restricted to clients regularly and customarily retained in matters the communication relates to.

Q: Could the lawyer mail the leaflet to people who were not his clients?

A: No. The committee said such communications definitely should not be sent to persons or concerns other than regular clients.

Q: Why was this particular leaflet improper even for clients?

A: The committee found it too general, said it did not advise of statutes, recent decisions, or administrative rulings, and concluded its rather obvious purpose was indirect solicitation of business, so it could not be sent to clients or others.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which barred indirect advertising and solicitation designed to secure professional employment. 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): indirect advertising or solicitation designed to secure professional employment is improper.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Advisory Opinion 213

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 173: Lawyer's automobile license tag ornament
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 169: New lawyer's newspaper practice announcement
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 165: Lawyer advertising a side business from the law office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-174/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted December 9, 1953

QUESTION

An attorney made inquiry concerning the propriety of sending out a printed leaflet called

“TAX-WISE

A Monthly Digest on everyday tax problems in everyday language

October 1953

RICHARD ROE

Attorney-at-Law

800 American Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma”

…..

On the following pages of the leaflet appear general discussions on the following questions:

(a) Bad debts

(b) Involuntary sale

(c) Demolition

(d) The preferred taxpayer

The full text is not set out herein, but in brief the text under bad debts partially reads as follows:

“Does anyone owe you money which you find hard to collect? If so, you have a bad debt which may or may not be deductible from income. … The test as to whether it is a business bad debt or a non-business bad debt depends on the character of the debt at the time it became worthless and not when it arose.

A business bad debt is fully deductible from income. A non-business bad debt is a short-term capital loss, which is a limited deduction as provided by law.

Debts which are evidences by bonds, debentures or notes issued by a corporation or government agency are subject to special rules. When a debt represented by such a security becomes worthless, it is a capital loss. Whether it is a long-term or short-term loss depends on the length of time the security was held before it became worthless. …”

Inquiry is made as to whether it is permissible to mail such leaflets to (a) his clients, (b) to other persons, and (c) could a similar leaflet be mailed each month.

ANSWER

An attorney may advise his REGULAR CLIENTS of any new statutes, court decisions, and administrative rulings which affect his clients’ interest.

The communication should be restricted to clients by whom the lawyer is regularly and customarily retained in matters of such nature that the communication is relevant. It definitely should not be sent to persons or concerns other than regular clients.

We think the leaflet submitted is inappropriate and therefore may not be sent to either clients or other persons for the matters covered are too general in nature and do not advise of statutes, recent court decisions or administrative rulings and would have the rather obvious purpose of being an indirect solicitation of business. (See advisory opinion 213 of the American Bar Association.)