May a lawyer run a separate 'skip tracer' business locating missing persons for other lawyers without violating the canons?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether offering his services as a "skip tracer," locating missing persons, to lawyers in his area would violate the canons. He proposed to make his fee contingent on success in locating the person; the committee read that as contingent on the location, not on the outcome of any litigation or prosecution.

The committee said the lawyer was on dangerous ground, but held the business would not violate the canons if three conditions were met: it was conducted from an office separate from his law office, it was solicited and conducted so as not to reveal his identity as a member of the bar, and it was not in fact used as a means of soliciting or securing employment as a lawyer. It explained that nothing in the canons prevents a lawyer from carrying on a business entirely distinct from and unrelated to the practice of law, but that the danger here was obvious because the services, though not strictly the practice of law, were performed for lawyers or litigants, creating a strong temptation to use the relationship to solicit law business. The committee distinguished this extra-legal service from the legal services involved in the "Income Tax Services" matter (Opinion No. 196) and the "Claims Adjusting" matter (Opinion No. 197). It noted that the three opinions rendered that date on lawyers engaging in independent occupations emphasized the qualities of good taste and good faith that should govern a lawyer's conduct, citing Drinker on Legal Ethics, p. 221.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1959, 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 advertising and solicitation concerns underlying the opinion 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer run a separate skip-tracer business?

A: The committee said yes, but only if the business was conducted from a separate office, was run so as not to reveal his bar membership, and was not used to solicit or secure law employment.

Q: Why did the committee call it "dangerous ground"?

A: Because the skip-tracer services were performed for lawyers or litigants, and the committee saw a great temptation to use that relationship to solicit or secure employment as a lawyer.

Q: How was this different from the income-tax and claims-adjusting opinions issued the same day?

A: The committee said skip tracing is an extra-legal service distinct from the practice of law, whereas the income-tax service (Opinion 196) and claims adjusting (Opinion 197) involved work generally considered the practice of law when done by attorneys.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed a lawyer's engagement in an independent, non-legal occupation under the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in Oklahoma, resolving it on the canons' solicitation principles and on the qualities of good taste and good faith, and cited Drinker's treatise. It was one of three opinions issued the same date on lawyers in independent occupations. 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): the solicitation concern that a separate business not be used to secure law employment.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Opinion No. 196 (August 13, 1959): newspaper "Income Tax Service" advertising.
• Oklahoma Opinion No. 197 (August 13, 1959): telephone-directory listing under "Adjuster."

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 221.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 196: Newspaper "Income Tax Service" ads omitting attorney status
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 197: Telephone-directory listing under "Adjuster"
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 165: Insurance and real-estate business run from a law office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-198/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted August 13, 1959

INQUIRY

An attorney has requested an opinion as to whether or not offering his services as a “skip tracer” (locating missing persons) to lawyers in this area would violate the Canons of Ethics. He suggests that his services would be contingent upon his success in locating the missing person. We presume this does not mean contingent upon the successful outcome of the litigation or prosecution.

OPINION

It is the opinion of the Committee that the lawyer is on dangerous ground but that if the proposed business is conducted from an office separate from that in which he practices law, is solicited and conducted in such a manner as will not reveal his identity as a member of the Bar and in fact is not used in a manner as a means of soliciting or securing employment as a lawyer, it does not violate the Canons. There is nothing in the Canons to prevent a lawyer from carrying on a business entirely distinct from and unrelated to the practice of law. The danger in this instance is obvious in view of the fact that services offered, though not strictly constituting “practice of law,” are performed for lawyers or litigants and the temptation to utilize this relationship for the “solicitation or securing employment as a lawyer” will be great. On the other hand, the distinction between extra-legal services here suggested and the legal services offered in the “Income Tax Services” matter (Opinion No. 196) and “Claims Adjusting” (Opinion No. 197) is likewise apparent.

The three opinions rendered this date on the general question of lawyers engaging in independent occupations emphasize the importance of the qualities of good taste and good faith which should govern the conduct of any lawyer when confronted with problems involving ethical conduct. See Drinker on Legal Ethics, p. 221.