May a lawyer have his name listed under more than one classification in a city directory's classified section?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered city directories such as the one published by the R. L. Polk organization, which contain a classified section, and was asked whether an attorney may have his name included under more than one classification. It answered that the answer is obviously no, regardless of whether a charge is made for the additional classification.

The committee explained the rationale: inclusion at all is proper only because all members of the Bar in the community are listed, so the listing is for the public's convenience and not for any advantage to the lawyers listed. In the directory it examined, all local Bar members were listed under "Lawyers," while an additional heading "Attorneys-at-Law" contained only a few of them, with a footnote indicating an extra charge for that listing. The committee said the names of those with the dual listing made it obvious the violation was not realized by them or by the directory's compilers, but it was nonetheless a clear violation, and both the attorneys and the compiler should take care that it not recur.

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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 an attorney appear under both "Lawyers" and "Attorneys-at-Law" in a city directory?

A: No. The committee said an attorney may not be listed under more than one classification, regardless of whether an extra charge is made.

Q: Why is a single classified directory listing acceptable at all?

A: The committee said it is proper only because all members of the Bar in the community are included, making the listing a convenience to the public rather than an advantage to any listed lawyer.

Q: What did the committee say should happen about the dual listings it found?

A: It treated them as a clear but apparently unrealized violation and said both the attorneys concerned and the directory's compiler should take care that it not recur.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 43 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which limits attorney directory listings, to duplicate classified listings in a commercial city directory. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 43 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): a classified directory listing is proper only as a convenience to the public when all local Bar members are included, not as an advantage to a listed lawyer.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 225: Attorney listings in civic club directories
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 227: Solicited listing in a private classified directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 224: Paid "Who's Who" directory listings

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-226/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 16, 1964

INQUIRY

City Directories such as that published by the R. L. Polk organization contain a classified section. It has been asked whether or not an attorney may have his name included therein in more than one classification.

OPINION

The answer is obviously “No,” regardless of whether a charge is made for the additional classification. The inclusion at all is proper only because all of the members of the Bar in a given community are included and the listing is therefore considered to be for the convenience of the public and not for any advantage to the members of the Bar so listed. In the directory examined all members of the Bar in the community were listed under the title “Lawyers.” An additional listing under the title “Attorneys-at-Law” contained only a few of the “Lawyers” and a footnote indicated that an additional charge is made for this listing. The names of the attorneys and firms having this dual listing make it obvious that this violation of the Code of Ethics was not realized by them or by the compilers of the directory. Nevertheless, it is a clear violation and both the attorneys concerned and the compiler of the directory should take care to see that it does not recur.