May a lawyer let a life insurance company run an ad naming him a special representative and touting his legal specialties?

Plain-English summary

A life insurance company published a metropolitan-newspaper advertisement announcing the appointment of a bar member as a special representative, giving his address and telephone number and carrying his photograph. The ad stated that he had practiced law since 1945, specializing in wills, trusts, estate planning, probate, corporate law, and partnerships; that his background equipped him to give expert counsel on all life-insurance plans as they pertain to estate planning, business insurance, and pension and profit-sharing plans; and it invited readers to call him on any life-insurance matter. The committee was asked whether the advertisement or the practice it contemplated violated the canons.

The committee answered yes to both. If the lawyer was to continue private practice, the advertisement was such a flagrant violation of Canon 27 as to require no further comment. If the contemplated arrangement was that the lawyer would receive remuneration from the insurance company, that was an equally serious violation of Canon 35, which provides that a lawyer's professional services should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency intervening between client and lawyer, and that his relation to his client should be personal and his responsibility direct to the client. The committee cited ABA Opinion No. 41, condemning a lawyer's permitting a bank to use his name in advertisements offering to draw wills and trust agreements, and quoted syllabi 2 and 3 of OBA Opinion No. 31: that engaging in a business so connected with law practice that it can cloak indirect solicitation, or associating with an organization that solicits work which would be law business if done by an attorney, is unprofessional conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, 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 the insurance company run the ad naming the lawyer and his specialties?

A: No. The committee said that if the lawyer was to continue private practice, the ad was a flagrant violation of Canon 27.

Q: What was the problem with the lawyer being paid by the insurer?

A: The committee said being paid by the insurance company to serve its customers violates Canon 35, which bars a lay agency from intervening between client and lawyer and requires the lawyer's responsibility to run directly to the client.

Q: Does the opinion bar a lawyer from any outside business?

A: It does not say that. The committee, quoting OBA Opinion No. 31, condemned a business so connected with law practice that it can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation, or association with an organization soliciting work that would be law business if done by an attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which bars direct and indirect advertising, and Canon 35, which bars a lay intermediary from controlling or exploiting a lawyer's services. It relied on ABA Opinion No. 41 and OBA Opinion No. 31. 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 and indirect advertising for professional employment.
• Canon 35 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): a lawyer's services should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency intervening between client and lawyer.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion No. 41: a lawyer may not permit a bank to use his name in ads offering to draw wills and trust agreements.
• Oklahoma Opinion No. 31: a business that can cloak indirect solicitation, or association with an organization soliciting law business, is unprofessional conduct.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 165: Insurance and real-estate business run from a law office
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 20: Trust company will solicitation and a lawyer officer
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 198: A lawyer's skip-tracer business as an independent occupation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-207/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted August 11, 1960

The Executive Council has submitted to the Legal Ethics Committee the following inquiry:

INQUIRY

A life insurance company announced by publication in a metropolitan paper the appointment of a member of the Bar as a special representative, giving his address and telephone number. The advertisement carried a picture of the attorney and the following:

“Mr. X has been practicing law in _ since 1945, specializing in wills, trusts, estate planning, probating of estates, corporate law and partnerships.

Because of his background and training he is well equipped to serve and to give expert counsel to his clients in connection with all plans of life insurance as they pertain to personal estate planning, business insurance, pension and profit-sharing plans.

A cordial invitation is extended you to call Mr. X on any matters pertaining to life insurance.”

Does the advertisement or the practice contemplated by it violate the Canons of Professional Ethics?

OPINION

In both instances the answer is yes. If it is intended that Mr. X is to continue private practice, the advertisement is such a flagrant violation of Canon 27 as to require no further comment. If the practice contemplated pursuant to the advertisement is that Mr. X is to receive remuneration from the insurance company, it is an equally serious violation of Canon 35 which reads in part as follows:

“The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibility should be direct to the client. Charitable societies rendering aid to the indigent are not deemed such intermediaries.”

Opinion No. 41 of the American Bar Association Ethics Committee condemned the practice of an attorney permitting the use of his name by a bank in advertisements in which the bank offered to draw wills and trust agreements. Syllabi Nos. 2 and 3 of OBA Opinion No. 31 are particularly appropriate:

“2. While an attorney may engage in other business, it constitutes unprofessional conduct to engage in another business which is so connected with his law practice that it can be used as a cloak for the indirect solicitation of law business.

3. The association of an attorney with an organization which solicits business, which is of such a nature as to be regarded as law business when performed by an attorney, constitutes unprofessional conduct on the part of such attorney.”