May a lawyer place a journal card advertising that he specializes in writing briefs for other lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer could place a journal card or announcement reading "John Doe ... Specializing in Writing Brief for other Lawyers." Quoting Drinker's Legal Ethics, it noted that a professional card may not state branches of the law practiced, or that the lawyer intends to restrict his practice to a branch not constituting a recognized specialty.

The committee set out Canon 46, which allows a brief, dignified notice where a lawyer renders a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers, addressed to lawyers in legal periodicals. It said the answer turns on whether brief-writing is a specialized legal service, and concluded it is not, because legal research and the preparation of briefs is done by every general practitioner. Drawing on Michigan State Bar Opinion 94, which quoted ABA Opinions 175 and 145, the committee applied the test of whether the work is a class the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle; "Admiralty" and "Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights" were recognized specialties, but work the average lawyer handles is not a specialty even if one lawyer restricts himself to it and becomes proficient. ABA Opinion 145 had held a similar advertisement of legal research, preparation for trial and appeal, briefing, and written opinions improper. The committee also noted Oklahoma Board of Governors Advisory Opinions 3 and 22, holding a lawyer who solicited brief-writing from other lawyers guilty of unprofessional conduct, and concluded such a card would not be proper.

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 46's narrow treatment of notices and the bar on advertising fields of practice 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 advertise a brief-writing service to other lawyers?

A: No. The committee concluded the card would not be proper because brief-writing is not a recognized specialty under Canon 46.

Q: Why isn't brief-writing a "specialty" the lawyer could advertise?

A: The committee said legal research and the preparation of briefs is done by every general practitioner, so it is work the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle, which the test treats as not a specialty.

Q: What kinds of work did the committee treat as recognized specialties?

A: Citing ABA Opinion 175 through Michigan Opinion 94, it identified "Admiralty" and "Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights" as recognized specialties.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 46 (notices of specialized service to other lawyers) and the advertising restrictions of Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, drawing on ABA Opinions 175 and 145, Michigan Opinion 94, and Oklahoma Board Opinions 3 and 22. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 46 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): a brief, dignified notice of a specialized legal service rendered directly and only to other lawyers is not improper.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 175 (Admiralty and Patents/Trademarks/Copyrights as recognized specialties)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 145 (advertisement of legal research and briefing improper)
• Michigan State Bar Opinion 94
• Oklahoma Board of Governors Advisory Opinions 3 and 22

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 241

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 176: "Tax attorney" designation and club rosters
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 180: Professional cards in a newspaper directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 173: Lawyer's automobile license tag ornament

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-182/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 15, 1955

QUERY

Would it be permissible … to place a card or announcement in the journal, reading as follows:

John Doe

Blank Building

Blank City, Okla.

Specializing in Writing Brief for other Lawyers.

ANSWER

Drinker’s Legal Ethics p. 241 says,

“A professional card may not state branches of the law practiced, or that the lawyer intends to restrict his practice to a particular tribunal or to a branch of the law not constituting a recognized specialty …”.

Canon 46 reads:

“Where a lawyer is engaged in rendering a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers, a brief, dignified notice of that fact, couched in language indicating that it is addressed to lawyers, interested in legal periodicals and like publications, when it will afford convenient and beneficial information to lawyers desiring to obtain such service, is not improper.”

The answer to the above question depends on whether or not brief writing is a specialized legal service. Obviously they are not, for legal research and the preparation of briefs is done by every general practitioner.

Opinion 94 of the Michigan State Bar quoted from opinions of the American Bar saying:

“On this subject Opinion 175 of the American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics held that ‘Admiralty’ and ‘Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights’ are recognized specialties, but added:

‘Any class of work which the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle cannot be said to be a specialty despite the fact that a lawyer may restrict himself to such a class of work and acquire an unusual degree of proficiency and experience in handling the same.’

Opinion 145 of the American Bar Committee on Professional Ethics held that the following similar advertisement to lawyers was improper:

‘Specialization in legal research–preparation of cases for trial and appeal– trial and appellate briefing–rendition of written opinions.’

We feel constrained to follow the precedent established by these two previous holdings of the American Bar Committee on Professional Ethics and to apply the test; whether the work sought to be advertised is a class of work which the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle. While we recognize that one who does such work to the exclusion of all other types of law practice may become especially proficient therein, nevertheless this circumstance does not change the fact that the average lawyer holds himself out as one who is equipped and willing to do the work himself.”

In Advisory Opinions 3 and 22 of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association it was held that a lawyer soliciting brief writing from the other lawyers was guilty of unprofessional conduct.

Such card or announcement would not be proper.