May a lawyer run a professional card in a newspaper, and is he responsible if the paper prints it without his consent?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether it is ethical to run professional cards in a newspaper, a question it said had been answered in the negative so many times it should be settled. It addressed two contentions raised to justify such cards. In the first, two lawyers whose cards appeared in a newspaper "Business and Professional Directory" claimed they had not asked for or paid for the cards and bore no responsibility to have them stopped. In the second, a lawyer justified his newspaper card on the ground that his name was missing from the telephone book's yellow pages where other attorneys were listed, and that the directory's "look in the yellow pages" ads were themselves advertising.

On the first contention, the committee said it is indirect advertising for the cards to appear even when nothing is paid, and that the lawyers have a duty to request the editor to leave the cards out, explaining the insertion is unethical. It relied on Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 120 (the lawyer must notify the publisher in positive terms to discontinue, and report continued listings to the State Bar secretary, with injunction available) and ABA Opinion 62 (the lawyer must require the publisher to discontinue or be "advertised" by indirection contrary to Canon 27).

On the second contention, the committee said the lawyer is responsible for his name not appearing in the yellow pages, and that its absence does not justify publishing it in the newspaper. Quoting ABA Opinion 284, it explained that a uniform classified listing under a general heading such as "Attorneys at Law" is not improper because the public is entitled to lawyers' names and addresses and each lawyer gets the same publicity, but that seeking a distinctive method of self-classification different from the general listing becomes improper advertising offending Canon 27. Inserting or permitting cards in the newspaper was a clear attempt to segregate the lawyers for special attention and was unethical. The committee noted California had reprimanded an attorney for such a card, citing Barton v. State Bar of California, and recommended reading its earlier Opinion 169.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1955, 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 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 is 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 a lawyer run a professional card in a newspaper?

A: No. The committee said a newspaper professional card is improper indirect advertising under Canon 27 and an attempt to single the lawyer out for special attention.

Q: Was a lawyer responsible for a card the newspaper ran without his consent?

A: Yes. The committee said the lawyer has a duty to ask the publisher in positive terms to discontinue it, explaining the insertion is unethical, even if he did not pay for it.

Q: How is that different from a telephone-book classified listing?

A: The committee, quoting ABA Opinion 284, said a uniform classified listing under a general heading like "Attorneys at Law" is proper because the public needs lawyers' names and each gets equal publicity; a distinctive self-classification is what offends Canon 27.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, distinguishing permissible uniform classified listings from improper distinctive advertising, and drew on ABA Opinions 62, 284, and Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 120. 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): a distinctive method of self-classification different from the general informative listing of fellow lawyers is improper advertising or solicitation.

Cases:

• Barton v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818, attorney reprimanded for a newspaper card

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 62 (duty to have an unconsented listing discontinued)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 284 (classified directory listings)
• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 120 (1937 Year Book)
• Oklahoma Bar Association Opinion 169

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 169: New lawyer's newspaper practice announcement
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 179: Lawyer posing for a newspaper photo on a judgment
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 176: "Tax attorney" designation and club rosters

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-180/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted March 9, 1955

QUERY

Is it ethical to run professional cards in a newspaper?

ANSWER

This question has been answered in the negative so many times that one would think the question was settled beyond doubt.

The only justification for this opinion is to answer two rather untenable contentions made to justify the insertion of the cards in the papers.

In one case the professional cards of two lawyers appear in the paper under the heading “Business and Professional Directory.” The card reads:

“Name

Attorney-at-Law

City, Oklahoma

Address Telephone No.”

The other reads,

“Lawyer

Name Address Phone

P.O. Box City, Oklahoma”

In the first instance the two lawyers take the position that they did not ask for the cards to be run, that they did not pay nor agree to pay for the ads and that they have no responsibility to direct the newspaper publisher to cease and desist.

In the second instance the lawyer attempts to justify his running the ad by saying,

“I notice my name is not in the yellow page of the Telephone directory, I see most of the other attorneys names are listed therein …. I thought to be even with them, I would let the local newspaper insert my name and place in their paper …. Now one or two of our young sprouts said they were taking this up with the Bar Board. …. I told them this name was no different in and not as much advertising as they had in the Telephone directory, since their names was so inserted as per the papers inclosed, and the ad at many different places calling upon the public to first get the fellows names who are listed in this yellow sheet, before they get elsewhere.”

He enclosed the yellow page (classified) of Attorneys which gives their names, addresses and phone numbers. Then pasted to this portion are 19 different ads which read in part, “Look first in the yellow pages,” or “Let the yellow pages be your shopping helper”, etc.

In Opinion 169 we reviewed the opinions of both the Oklahoma and the American Bar Associations. We recommend the reading of that Opinion.

We shall consider the contentions above set out in order.

As to the first–it is indirect advertising for the cards to appear in said paper even though nothing is paid for their insertion. There is a duty on the part of the lawyers to request the editor to leave the card out of the paper, explaining that the insertion is unethical.

In Advisory Opinion No. 120 appearing in the 1937 Year Book it is said,

“The publishers who have heretofore carried the name or card of the inquirer without his consent should be notified in positive terms to discontinue the listing … in future publications ….

Should publishers … continue to carry the name or cards … after having been notified to discontinue … the members whose names are carried in those publications should notify the Secretary of the State Bar of the facts.”

Opinion No. 120 then suggests that the publisher may be enjoined if he continues to carry the name.

In A.B.A. Opinion 62, it is said, “… it was the duty of the lawyer as soon as his attention was called thereto, to request and require the publisher to discontinue publication …. The failure to so do would permit him to be ‘advertised’ by indirection contrary to the provisions of Canon 27.”

As to the second contention:

We feel certain that the lawyer is responsible for his name not appearing in the yellow page. Just because it does not appear therein does not justify his publishing it in the paper.

The listing in the classified portion of the telephone book is not advertising for as said in A.B.A. Opinion No. 284,

“… the listing of lawyers under some suitable general classification such as … ‘Attorneys at Law’, is not to be discouraged, …, because the public is entitled to information regarding the names and addresses of lawyers.

Hence questions relating to the use of a classified directory must be resolved by balancing the public interest against the incidental publicity accorded the individual lawyer. Where the publicity accorded each lawyer is the same, there can be no undue advantage. However, where the lawyer seeks some distinctive method of self-classification which is different from the general informative listing of his fellow lawyers, it becomes improper advertising or solicitation and offends Canon 27.”

By inserting or permitting others to insert cards in the newspaper is a clear attempt on the part of these lawyers to attempt to segregate themselves for special attention and is unethical.

An attorney was reprimanded in California for the insertion of such a card in the newspaper. See Barton v. State Bar of Cal., 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818.