May a lawyer list himself in the telephone directory of a town where he has neither an office nor a residence?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether an attorney could maintain a listing in the telephone directory of a town other than the one where his office is located or where he resides.

The committee held the practice improper under Canon 27, which forbids direct or indirect advertising. It explained that prior opinions had treated a classified (yellow pages) listing in the city where the attorney maintains his office as an exception, because the public benefit of easily locating a specific attorney's number outweighs the possible taint of advertising in such paid-for listings. That reasoning could not extend to listings in directories of communities where the attorney maintains neither office nor residence; the only apparent reason for such a listing would be advertising, since a person seeking that particular attorney would not look in the directory of a community where he neither resides nor practices. The committee noted that the Michigan bar's ethics committee had reached the same result twice, in Opinion No. 45 (1951) on classified listings in nearby small communities and Opinion No. 171 (1958) extending the reasoning to "foreign listings" in the white pages, observing that the lesser conspicuousness of a white-pages listing did not change the basic objection.

The committee added two clarifications. An attorney who resides in one community but keeps an office in another may add his office telephone to his general residence listing, and may indicate his residence in the general directory listing where his office is located. It would be improper, however, to be listed in the classified section of the community where he only resides, or to show his residence number in the classified section of the directory where his office is located.

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 prohibitions 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 list himself in a directory of a town where he has no office or home?

A: No. The committee said the only reason for such a listing would be advertising, which Canon 27 forbids.

Q: Why is a listing in the lawyer's own office city allowed but not one elsewhere?

A: The committee said a listing in the office city helps the public locate a specific attorney's number, a benefit that outweighs the advertising taint; that justification does not exist where the lawyer neither lives nor practices.

Q: What may a lawyer who lives in one town and works in another do?

A: He may add his office number to his general residence listing and indicate his residence in the general listing where his office is located, but he may not appear in the classified section of his residence community or show his residence number in the classified section of his office community.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which bars direct or indirect advertising, to telephone-directory listings in communities where the lawyer neither lives nor practices. It relied on Michigan ethics Opinions No. 45 (1951) and No. 171 (1958). 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): forbids direct or indirect advertising by an attorney.

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan State Bar Ethics Opinion No. 45 (1951): a firm may not list in classified directories of nearby communities where it has no office and no member resides.
• Michigan State Bar Ethics Opinion No. 171 (1958): the same objection applies to "foreign listings" in the white pages of a community where the lawyer has no office or residence.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 201: Correction cards after a directory omission
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 129: Bold-type listing in a telephone directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 50: Business card in a telephone directory and newspaper

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-202/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 2, 1959

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

INQUIRY

May an attorney maintain a listing in the telephone directory of a town other than that in which his office is located or in which he resides.

OPINION

It is the opinion of the Committee that such procedure is improper. Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics forbids direct or indirect advertising by an attorney. Prior opinions of this Committee have been to the effect that listings by an attorney in the classified section (yellow pages) of the telephone directory in the city where he maintains his office is an exception to this general rule on the grounds that the advantage to the public in being able to locate easily the telephone number of a specific attorney whose number they are seeking outweighs the possible taint of advertising which such “paid for” listings imply. The same reasoning cannot be applied to listings in directories of communities in which the attorney maintains neither an office nor a residence. In fact, it is quite apparent that the only reason for such listing would be in the nature of advertising, as it is not likely that one seeking that particular attorney would seek his name in the directory of a community in which he neither resides nor maintains an office.

The specific question has been before the Ethics Committee of the Bar of the State of Michigan on two occasions; the first in 1951 (Opinion No. 45) held that a law firm located in a large city could not with propriety carry a listing in classified pages of the directories of numerous small communities located close to the city but maintaining separate exchanges and directories, when neither the firm nor its members maintain law offices in the communities, nor any members of the firm reside therein. The second of these opinions (Opinion No. 171, 1958) applied the same reasoning to “foreign listings” in the regular white pages of the telephone directory of a community in which the lawyer maintained neither an office or residence. In that opinion it is pointed out that the fact that the foreign listing in the general white pages is less conspicuous does not change the same basic objection pointed out in the prior opinion to listings in the classified section.

Lest this opinion be misunderstood or misconstrued, we feel that it should be pointed out that an attorney residing in one community but maintaining an office in a separate community could with propriety have added to the general listing to which he is entitled as a telephone subscriber in the community of his residence, his office telephone in the community of his office. By the same token, in the general listing in the directory of the community where his office is located, it would likewise be proper to indicate his residence in the other community.

It would be improper for him to be listed in the classified section of the community in which he resided or to have his residence number shown in the classified section of the directory of the community in which his office is located.