May a lawyer submit biographical data to a 'Who's Who' type directory when listing requires paying a fee or buying a copy of the publication?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether attorneys may permit their names, with biographical data necessarily including professional status and accomplishments, to appear in a "Who's Who" type directory where the attorney would not pay for the listing itself but was required to purchase a copy of the publication. It recognized the argument that, if the subscription price matched the publication's retail price, the required purchase might not be improper.

The committee found that approach unworkable. It reasoned that conditioning the listing on a required purchase casts doubt on the integrity of the compilers and puts an intolerable burden on the lawyer to decide whether the volume's purchase price is its fair retail price. It therefore concluded that the safer and proper course is that members of the Bar may not submit biographical data for any "Who's Who" type publication if they must pay a fee, or if as a prerequisite they must subscribe to buy the completed volume.

The committee drew the line at compulsion. A lawyer's voluntary agreement to purchase the volume is proper, it said, provided the purchase price is commensurate with the volume's retail value. It closed by observing that, as in many ethical problems, good taste is the test.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, 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 restrictions underlying this 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 paid directory listings are treated differently 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 be listed in a directory that required him to buy a copy to appear?

A: No. The committee concluded a lawyer may not submit biographical data if, as a prerequisite to publication, he must subscribe to purchase the completed volume, or must pay a fee for the listing.

Q: Could a lawyer ever buy a copy of such a directory?

A: Yes, voluntarily. The committee said a voluntary agreement to purchase the volume is proper provided the price is commensurate with the volume's retail value; the problem was a required purchase as the condition of being listed.

Q: Why did the committee reject a "fair price" test for the required purchase?

A: It said conditioning the listing on a purchase casts doubt on the compilers' integrity and places an intolerable burden on the lawyer to judge whether the price is the fair retail price.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed paid biographical listings in "Who's Who" type publications under the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in Oklahoma, treating a compelled purchase as the disqualifying feature and resting its conclusion on the principle that "good taste is the test." The opinion cited no specific canon by number and predates the Model Rules; it made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion analyzed the propriety of paid directory listings under the Canons of Professional Ethics generally; it cited no specific canon by number.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 214: FAA-qualified examiners list and bonded lawyers
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 219: Announcing availability to serve other lawyers
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 223: Lawyers named and quoted in newspaper articles

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-224/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 16, 1964

INQUIRY

In 1963 a question concerning the propriety of attorneys’ permitting their names with biographical data (necessarily including professional status and accomplishments) to be included in a “Who’s Who” type directory arose. The information submitted indicated that the attorney would not pay for the listing but was required to purchase a copy of the publication.

OPINION

While it might appear that if the price of the subscription was commensurate with the retail price of such a publication the subscription would not be an improper prerequisite, it is also apparent that this not only puts a doubt on the integrity of the compilers, but also puts an intolerable burden on the member of the Bar to decide whether or not the purchase price of the volume is its fair retail price. Accordingly, it is felt that the safer and proper course is that members of the Bar may not submit biographic data for publication in any “Who’s Who” type of publication if they must pay a fee therefor or if as a prerequisite to such publication they must subscribe to the purchase of the completed volume. Obviously, voluntary agreement by an attorney to purchase the volume is proper provided the purchase price is commensurate with the retail value of the volume. As is true in many ethical problems, good taste is the test.