May a lawyer use a neon sign outside the building or in an office window?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether the use of a neon sign, either outside a building or suspended inside an office window, is proper. It answered that a neon sign, or any sign of unusual illumination, design, or size, is obviously intended to attract attention and is advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Quoting Drinker's Legal Ethics, the committee said a lawyer may not display a neon sign for a shingle, and that 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. It referred to Michigan Opinions 11, 14, and 33.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1956, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 use a neon sign for his office?

A: No. The committee concluded a neon sign, inside or out, is intended to attract attention and is advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Q: What was the test the committee applied?

A: Quoting Drinker, whether the sign is 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 though not for him.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, treating an attention-getting sign as improper advertising, and drew on Drinker's treatise and Michigan opinions. 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 sign of unusual illumination, design, or size intended to attract attention is improper advertising.

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan Opinions 11, 14, and 33

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 231

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 173: Lawyer's automobile license tag ornament
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 180: Professional cards in a newspaper directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 179: Lawyer posing for a newspaper photo on a judgment

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-185/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 13, 1956

QUERY

Is the use of a neon sign either outside of a building or suspended inside an office window proper?

ANSWER

A neon sign or any sign of unusual illumination, or design and size is obviously intended to attract attention and is advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Drinker’s Legal Ethics, page 231 says:

“A lawyer may not display a neon sign for a shingle. 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.

See also Michigan Opinions 11, 14 and 33.