May a newly admitted lawyer cooperate with an unsolicited newspaper feature story about his night-law-school education?

Plain-English summary

A recently admitted lawyer was approached by a newspaper reporter who wanted to write a feature story about the problems the lawyer faced acquiring his legal education after military service, while married, supporting a family, and holding a daytime job, all while attending night law school. The reporter's stated aim was to reveal the trials of the typical night-law-school student and the long hours of study required to become an attorney, and to cover the problems a lawyer faces just after admission. The lawyer would receive no payment, and the article was the reporter's idea, not solicited.

The committee treated the question as requiring re-examination of Canon 27, which it described as among the canons most in need of interpretation and most often violated through misunderstanding, especially as news media took greater interest in court proceedings. It reaffirmed Canon 27 as a vital part of legal ethics. The committee drew a line: it is not improper for attorneys to permit their pictures to be published for outstanding civic service, bar-association service, or social functions, but it is a violation to solicit or permit publicity concerning personal achievements or actions relating to specific legal representation, and where doubt exists it should be resolved in favor of the canon.

On the specific inquiry, the committee said the solicited attorney may, with propriety and preferably anonymity, answer questions and volunteer personal data for the article, so long as he insists it be dignified and in good taste, written so as not to imply advertisement for professional employment or to elicit personal sympathy for him if named. He should see that the published article carries out his instructions, must review it before publication, must correct inaccuracies and insist on eliminating material not in good taste, and must withdraw his cooperation if he knew the article would be sensational, undignified, or could be construed as advertising; he would be held accountable for any impropriety. Quoting Drinker, the committee said the question, like many in legal ethics, is ultimately one of good faith and good taste. It added that posed pictures of attorneys with clients, or in connection with litigation such as displaying evidence or handing over money in payment of a judgment, when posed or solicited, are clear violations of the canon, citing Opinion No. 38 (OBJ March 26, 1955) and Opinion No. 46 (OBJ July 27, 1957). A note records that the 1958 inquiry had been answered by letter at the time and that the fuller opinion was prepared by Mr. Gus Rinehart of the 1958 committee.

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 publicity 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 the lawyer cooperate with the feature story at all?

A: Yes. The committee said he may, with propriety and preferably anonymity, answer questions and volunteer personal data, provided the article stays dignified and is not advertising or an appeal for sympathy.

Q: What controls had to accompany the cooperation?

A: He had to insist the article be in good taste, review it before publication, correct inaccuracies, remove material not in good taste, and withdraw his cooperation if it would be sensational, undignified, or construable as advertising; he would be held accountable for any impropriety.

Q: Could the lawyer pose for pictures with clients or in connection with a case?

A: No. The committee held posed or solicited pictures with clients, or showing evidence or the handing over of money in payment of a judgment, are clear violations of Canon 27.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which bars direct or indirect advertising and solicitation, applying it to a lawyer's cooperation with an unsolicited newspaper feature and to posed publicity photographs. It relied on Drinker's treatise and on the committee's Opinions No. 38 and No. 46. 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): bars direct or indirect advertising and self-publicity tied to specific legal work.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Opinion No. 38 (OBJ, March 26, 1955): posed publicity is improper.
• Oklahoma Opinion No. 46 (OBJ, July 27, 1957): posed publicity is improper.

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics: the question is ultimately one of good faith and good taste.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 193: Newspaper feature story on a night-law-school graduate
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 187: A lawyer's photograph published in a newspaper
• 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-203/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 2, 1959

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

INQUIRY

A member of the bar recently admitted to the practice has been approached by a newspaper reporter with a request that the reporter be allowed to do a feature story for his paper concerning the problems facing the lawyer in acquiring his legal education subsequent to his separation from military service and during a period in which he was married, had a family to support and held a responsible daytime job, all while attending night law school. It is the announced intention of the reporter to, in this manner, reveal the trials and tribulations of the typical night law school student and inform the public at large of the long hours of preparation and study necessary to become an attorney. The article will also include the problems faced by an attorney immediately after his admission to practice. The attorney will receive no consideration, and the article was not solicited, but wholly the idea of the newspaper reporter.

OPINION

The question requires a re-examination and interpretation of Canon 27. Few Canons require more interpretation and evaluation as does Canon 27. Equally so, no other Canon, it would seem, is so flagrantly and often violated, usually by misunderstanding, misinterpretation and ignorance of its full import and intent. Especially has this become true in recent years by the increased interest and activity by the various news media into actual court proceedings and the news value of lawyers’ associations thereto. This Committee is not unmindful of its primary duty to the public as a whole, as well as its desire to promote cooperation and understanding between the various news media and the legal profession. However, it reaffirms Canon 27 as a vital, necessary and integral part of the ethics of the legal profession. And all members of the bar are admonished to follow its spirit and intent.

While it is not an impropriety for attorneys to permit their pictures to be published for outstanding civic service, service to the bar association and in connection with social functions and the like, it is equally unquestionably a violation of this Canon to solicit or permit publicity concerning personal achievements or actions relating to specific legal representation or accomplishments and when doubt exists, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the Canon and the particular doubtful activity not permitted.

In regard to the particular question submitted it is the opinion of the Committee that the attorney so solicited may, with propriety and preferably anonymity, answer questions and volunteer personal data in connection with the preparation of such an article, so long as he insists that the article be dignified and in good taste and, further, to be written in such a tone as not to imply to the public that it is intended to constitute advertisement for professional employment, nor elicit personal sympathy for the person, if named. Further, he should see to it, as far as possible, that the article as published, carries out his instructions. It being understood that when cooperating in the publishing of such an article that the particular attorney would be held accountable for any impropriety or violation of the Canons. He should insist upon reviewing such an article in advance of publication and not only should correct inaccuracies, but should insist upon the elimination of material not in good taste. It would be his duty to discourage the publication of such an article, withdrawing his cooperation and assent to its being published if he knew in advance that it was sensational or undignified or might be construed as advertising. The test is as stated by Mr. Drinker in his text on Legal Ethics:

“In its ultimate analysis the question like many of those involving legal ethics, is one of good faith and good taste.”

It has further come to the attention of the Committee regarding certain pictures at times accompanied by articles of explanation which have been published, especially by the metropolitan newspapers, wherein attorneys have posed for pictures with clients or posed for pictures in connection with some phase of particular litigation or legal work such as displaying evidence used or to be used in litigation, handling over money in payment of judgment, etc., which pictures and/or articles, when so posed or solicited are herewith held to be in clear violation of the Canon. Opinion No. 38, OBJ March 26, 1955; Opinion No. 46 OBJ July 27, 1957.

Note: The inquiry answered by this opinion was made in 1958, and due to the exigency of the situation was answered by letter direct to the inquirer in substantially the manner set forth in the first part of above opinion. Certain members of the Committee felt, however, that any opinion released on this subject should be more comprehensive. Mr. Gus Rinehart of the 1958 Committee prepared the above opinion.