May a lawyer or firm list their names in the classified or alphabetical sections of a telephone directory, including in exchange areas where they have no office?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether listing attorneys' names in the classified section of a telephone directory violates the Code of Legal Ethics, and whether a lawyer or firm may list their names in the alphabetical or classified section of a directory outside the exchange area where they reside or maintain an office. It gave three holdings: a uniform classified listing in the lawyer's own exchange area is not a Canon 27 violation; a classified listing in an exchange area where the lawyer or firm does not reside or maintain an office is improper; and a lawyer may list himself individually in the alphabetical section of an outside-area directory, but partnerships and firms may not.

The committee explained that Canon 27 forbids direct or indirect advertising and solicitation, its central purpose being to prevent unseemly efforts to gain undue publicity calculated to bring law practice. At the same time, listing lawyers under a suitable general heading such as "Lawyers" or "Attorneys at Law" is not to be discouraged even in a classified directory, because the public is entitled to information about lawyers' names and addresses. Questions about classified directories must therefore be resolved by balancing the public interest against the incidental publicity to the individual lawyer: where the publicity is the same for every lawyer there is no undue advantage, but where a lawyer seeks a distinctive self-classification different from the general listing of his fellow lawyers, it becomes improper advertising or solicitation.

On the out-of-area questions, the committee reasoned that a telephone directory exists to facilitate communication, not to advertise legal services, and that using the classified portion outside the lawyer's office or residence exchange area tends to be an advertising vehicle and is to be condemned. It observed that a directory is not a law list one consults to select a lawyer, but a means of locating a lawyer already chosen, and a client calling a predetermined lawyer should know his exchange area. The committee allowed an individual attorney (for example, one with a foreign-exchange line) to list himself in the alphabetical portion of an outside-area directory, with his residence and telephone number, taking care to appear only in the alphabetical section.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, 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 lawyer directory and online 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 the classified ("yellow pages") section of his local phone directory?

A: Yes. The committee said a classified listing is not a Canon 27 violation as long as it is no different from the listing adopted for all other lawyers in the exchange area.

Q: Could a lawyer or firm take a classified listing in another town's directory where they have no office?

A: No. The committee held that classified listings in an exchange area where the lawyer or firm does not reside or maintain an office are improper, because they tend to be an advertising vehicle.

Q: Could an individual lawyer appear in another area's directory at all?

A: Yes, but only in the alphabetical section, not the classified section, and partnerships and firms may not. The committee reasoned a client already knowing the lawyer's name may conveniently find his number there.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which bars advertising and solicitation, to classified and alphabetical telephone-directory listings, resolving them by balancing the public's interest in finding lawyers against incidental individual publicity. It cited several ABA opinions and informal decisions and an American Bar Foundation research memorandum. 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 solicitation, while permitting uniform general informative listings of lawyers.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinions Nos. 284 and 313, and Informal Decisions Nos. C-487 and C-732.
• American Bar Foundation Research Memorandum Series No. 6, Supplement to Appendix A of the Canons of Professional Ethics (1962).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 227: Solicited listing in a private classified directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 226: Multiple classifications in a city directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 232: A lawyer's interest in an abstract company

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-233/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 11, 1965

INQUIRY

The Committee has been asked whether or not the listing of attorneys names in the classified section of a telephone directory constitutes a violation of the Code of Legal Ethics, and whether or not a lawyer or firm of lawyers may properly list their names in the alphabetical portion or classified section of a telephone directory outside the exchange area in which the lawyer or firm resides or maintains an office.

1. ADVERTISING–It is not a violation of Canon 27 for a lawyer, firm, or partnership, to list his or their names in the classified section of a telephone directory as long as the listing is no different from the manner and method adopted therein for all other lawyers in the telephone exchange area.

2. ADVERTISING–It is improper for a lawyer, firm, or partnership, to have his or their names listed in the classified section of a telephone directory covering a telephone exchange area in which he or they do not reside or maintain an office.

3. ADVERTISING–A lawyer may list himself individually in the alphabetical section of a telephone directory covering an area in which he does not reside or maintain an office, but partnerships and firms may not be listed.

(1) Canon 27 forbids advertising or solicitation, either directly or indirectly, by a lawyer. The central purpose of Canon 27 is to prevent a lawyer from indulging in unseemly efforts to gain undue publicity calculated to bring law practice. At the same time the listing of lawyers under some suitable general classification, such as “Lawyers” or “Attorneys at Law,” is not to be discouraged, even in a classified directory, because the public is entitled to information regarding the names and addresses of lawyers.

Hence questions relating to the use of a classified directory must be resolved by balancing the public interest against the incidental publicity accorded the individual lawyer. Where the publicity accorded each lawyer is the same, there can be no undue advantage. However, where the lawyer seeks some distinctive method of self-classification which is different from the general informative listing of his fellow lawyers, it becomes improper advertising, or solicitation and offends Canon 27.

(2) and (3) The purpose of the telephone directory is to facilitate communication between persons using the telephone and not, as far as lawyers are concerned, for the purpose of advertising legal services. The use of the classified portion of the directory outside of the exchange area of the office or residence of the lawyer, or firm, tends to be an advertising vehicle and is to be condemned.

A telephone directory is not a law list in which anyone would look to select a lawyer, but is merely a means of locating a lawyer already determined upon, such listing making his location easier and therefore serving a useful purpose. A client calling a predetermined lawyer should know the exchange area of his office or home.

This opinion does not seek to prevent an attorney from listing his name in the alphabetical portion of the directory, in an exchange area where he does not reside or maintain an office. This Committee feels that a client who wishes to call an attorney, already knowing his name, may conveniently and casily find his telephone number and address. Attorneys who avail themselves of such listings, particularly those with Foreign Exchange Lines, should take care to see that they are listed only in the alphabetical section.

It is therefore the opinion of this Committee that the listing of the names of lawyers, or law firms, or partnerships, in telephone directories outside the exchange area of their residences or office in the classified section is unethical but a lawyer may list himself individually, together with his official residence and telephone number in the alphabetical portion only, in telephone directories outside such exchange area without being inconsistent with the object and spirit of Canon 27.

See Opinions 284, 313, and Informal Decisions No. C_487 and C_732 of the Committee on Professional Ethics, American Bar Association; also American Bar Foundation Research Memorandum Series No. 6, Supplement to Appendix A of Canon of Professional Ethics and Grievance, 1962_June 1958, No. 149.7.