May a lawyer state on his letterhead that he is also 'counsel' for a high-ranking state official?

Plain-English summary

The Central Committee asked whether an attorney in general practice in a city other than the state capital could carry on his letterhead, following his office addresses and telephone numbers, a direct reference to the fact that he was also "counsel" for one of the top-ranking officials of the state government.

The committee concluded he may not with propriety do so. It reasoned that previous opinions and the applicable canons indicate such a statement must be viewed as intended to convey that special attention should be drawn to the particular lawyer because he had been chosen as personal counsel to a high-ranking official, suggesting he possesses particular political or legal qualifications, and to that extent it is a form of advertising. The committee added that, apart from the exact question of ethics, the use of the statement is in extremely bad taste.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1957, 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. The flat treatment of letterhead content as 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 communications 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 note on his letterhead that he was a state official's counsel?

A: No. The committee concluded that statement is a form of advertising because it suggests special political or legal qualifications, and is in extremely bad taste.

Q: Why did the committee treat it as advertising?

A: Because, it said, the statement is intended to draw special attention to the lawyer for having been chosen as personal counsel to a high-ranking official.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the advertising principles of Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, and the committee's prior opinions, to letterhead content. 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 that draws special attention to a lawyer's qualifications is improper.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 176: "Tax attorney" designation and club rosters
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 183: The firm name "John Doe and Associates"
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 157: Letterhead touting members' former public offices

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-186/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 12, 1957

The Central Committee of the Oklahoma Bar Association has submitted to its Legal Ethics Committee the following inquiry:

INQUIRY

May an attorney, engaged in the general practice of law in a city not the capitol of the state, carry with propriety on his letterhead, following statements of his office addresses and telephone numbers, a direct reference to the fact that he is also “counsel” for one of the top-ranking officials of the state government?

OPINION

It is the opinion of the Committee that he may not with propriety do so. Previous opinions of this Committee, as well as applicable canons of legal ethics, indicate such a statement must be viewed as intended to convey the idea or ideas that especial attention should be drawn to the particular lawyer because of the fact he has been chosen as personal counsel to a high-ranking official and this indicates he possesses particular qualifications, either political or legal, and to this extent is a form of advertising. Aside from the exact question of ethics, it also is the view of the Committee that the use of the statement referred to is in extremely bad taste.