May a lawyer call himself a 'tax attorney' or 'corporation lawyer' on his letterhead or shingle, or let a civic club list him that way in its roster?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked two questions: whether a lawyer may designate himself as "tax attorney," "tax consultant," "corporation lawyer," or "general practice attorney" on his letterhead, office door, or shingle; and whether a lawyer who is a member of a civic club may allow the club to classify him under such a label in its printed annual roster, where all members are classified by occupation.

On the first question, the committee answered that a lawyer may not so designate himself, because holding himself out as engaging in special branches in that way would be indirect advertising in violation of Canon 27. It quoted Drinker's Legal Ethics that a letterhead may not state that the lawyer is a tax consultant, Doctor of Jurisprudence, or specify any other branch practiced, and that a shingle may not state special branches practiced.

On the second question, the committee found no violation of the Canons in a civic club classifying the lawyer as a "corporation lawyer," "tax attorney," or "general practice attorney" in its annual roster where members are classified by occupations or branch. It quoted Drinker that service clubs and similar organizations may publish rosters of their members with names, addresses, and occupations, where no charge is made for the listing and there is no suggestion that the lawyers are listed as available for professional employment. The committee referred back to its Opinion 170, which had said it would violate the Canon for an attorney to permit his name to appear on the roster of an organization that had as one of its stated purposes urging members to patronize one another, and it assumed in answering that the civic organization's purpose was not to promote members patronizing one another.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1954, 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 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 modern rules permit lawyers to communicate fields of practice. 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 label himself a "tax attorney" on his letterhead or shingle?

A: No. The committee concluded that designating special branches on a letterhead, office door, or shingle would be indirect advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Q: Could a civic club list him as a "tax attorney" in its roster?

A: Yes. The committee found no violation in a civic club classifying him by occupational branch in its annual members' roster, where members are classified by occupation.

Q: What condition did the committee attach to the roster listing?

A: It assumed the civic organization's purpose was not to urge members to patronize one another; its Opinion 170 had held it a violation for a lawyer's name to appear on the roster of an organization that had such patronage-urging as a stated purpose.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which barred indirect advertising designed to secure professional employment, and drew on Henry S. Drinker's treatise on legal ethics and the committee's prior Opinion 170. 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 designed to secure professional employment is improper, including stating special branches practiced on a letterhead or shingle.

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics, pp. 229, 231, 268

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Bar Association Opinion 170 (lawyer's name on the roster of an organization urging members to patronize one another)

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 170: Attorney in a civic organization's business directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 173: Lawyer's automobile license tag ornament
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 174: Mailing a tax leaflet to clients

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-176/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted August 4, 1954

QUERY

1. May a lawyer designate himself as “tax attorney”, “tax consultant”, “corporation lawyer”, or as a “general practice attorney” on his letterheads, his office door, or his shingle?

2. May a lawyer who is a member of a civic club allow the club to classify him as a “corporation lawyer”, “tax attorney”, or a “general practice attorney” in its annual roster which is printed and delivered to the members of the club? All club members are classified by occupation.

ANSWER

The answer to the first question above is that a lawyer may not designate himself on his letterhead, his office door, or his shingle as engaging in special branches, as above set out for such would be indirect advertising in violation of Canon 27.

In Drinker’s Legal Ethics at page 229 it is said:

“It (letterhead) may not contain a statement that the lawyer is … tax consultant, Doctor of Jurisprudence, or specify … any other branch practiced, …”

and at page 231 under the heading of “Shingles” is found this statement:

“Nor may there be a statement of special branches practiced … the test is whether the sign is intended and calculated to enable persons looking for a lawyer, already selected, to find him, or to attract the attention of persons who might be looking for a lawyer, although not for him.”

ANSWER to the second inquiry

There is no violation to the Canon of Ethics to be classified in the roster of a civic club as a “corporation lawyer”, “tax attorney”, or “general practice attorney” in its annual roster where the members are classified by occupations or branch thereof.

See Drinker’s Legal Ethics, page 268, where it is said:

“Law schools, fraternities, service clubs, and bar associations may publish rosters, registers, catalogs, or lists of their members, with their names, addresses, and occupations, which are not law lists, where no charge is made for listing and there is no suggestion that the names of the lawyers are listed as probably available for professional employment, or to promote, solicit, or secure professional employment.”

We call attention to our previous Opinion No. 170 wherein we said: “it would be a violation of said Canon for an attorney to permit his name to appear on the roster of any organization which had for one of its stated purposes the urging of members to patronize one another. Such would be at least indirect advertisement for professional employment.”

We assume in aswering [sic] question 2 above, that the purpose of the civic organization is not for the purpose of promoting members to patronize one another.