May a lawyer be listed as an attorney in a new toll-free area-wide telephone directory that also covers towns where the lawyer has no office?

Plain-English summary

Southwestern Bell announced a "Wide-Area Calling Plan" allowing toll-free calls across a 1,260 square mile area around Oklahoma City, with a single directory listing all subscribers in that area. The Board of Governors asked the committee to reevaluate Opinion 255 in light of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which Oklahoma adopted effective January 1, 1970. The committee reviewed Disciplinary Rule 2-102 and Ethical Considerations 2-9 and 2-10, which permitted a lawyer to be identified in the classified section of the telephone directory for the area where the lawyer resides, maintains offices, or has a significant part of his clientele, giving only the name, the fact that he is a lawyer, address, and telephone number, in non-distinctive form.

Applying that framework, the committee held that listing as an attorney in the alphabetical or classified section of the new area-wide directory would not be unethical for any attorney maintaining a bona fide office or residence within the area covered. It reasoned that modern technology permitting expanded toll-free communication should redound to the lawyer's benefit, not his detriment. The committee noted that Opinion 233 (1965) had barred a listing in a directory covering "an exchange area" where the lawyer neither resided nor had an office, but it found the words "exchange area" no longer a suitable standard given expanding toll-free service between communities.

The committee reaffirmed its prior restrictions on the style and content of listings: attorneys' names may not be listed after the firm name, bold-face or unusual type may not be used, and unusual addresses that unnecessarily increase the number of lines are improper. It reaffirmed that listing home telephone numbers is consistent with professional dignity, but a member's home number should appear under his individual alphabetical listing rather than the firm name, and listings indicating night, Sunday, holiday, or "no answer" alternate numbers remain prohibited. In summary, it reaffirmed its previous opinions on the style, content, and appearance of telephone listings.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The advertising premises 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 and listing formats are treated very 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 appear in the new area-wide directory even for towns where he had no office?

A: Yes, so long as he maintained a bona fide office or residence somewhere within the area the directory covered; the committee said the toll-free expansion should benefit the lawyer rather than restrict his listing.

Q: What happened to the older "exchange area" rule from Opinion 233?

A: The committee held that, given expanding toll-free service, the words "exchange area" were no longer a suitable standard for judging the propriety of a telephone listing.

Q: Did the relaxed geographic rule change the format restrictions?

A: No. The committee reaffirmed that there could be no bold type, no firm members' names after the firm name, no padded addresses, and no after-hours or "if no answer" numbers, with home numbers appearing only under an individual's alphabetical listing.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Disciplinary Rule 2-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (permitted forms of professional notices and listings) together with Ethical Considerations 2-9 and 2-10 (the rationale for restraints on advertising and the limited identification permitted), and referred to DR 2-105 on permitted practice-area headings. It reaffirmed the committee's earlier telephone-listing opinions (Nos. 180, 202, 233, and 255). The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102 (Code of Professional Responsibility): permitted professional notices, letterheads, and directory listings.
• EC 2-9 and EC 2-10 (Code of Professional Responsibility): the public-interest rationale for limits on advertising and the limited identification of lawyers permitted in directory listings.
• DR 2-105 (Code of Professional Responsibility): permitted headings or classifications descriptive of types of practice.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinions Nos. 180, 202, 233, and 255.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 255: Telephone directory listing details
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 233: Lawyer listings in telephone directories
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 202: Out-of-town telephone directory listing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-261/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted March 19, 1971

Syllabus 1. A listing of the office of a lawyer or law firm in the alphabetical and classified sections of the telephone directory or directories for the geographical area or areas in which he resides or maintains a bona fide office is not ethically improper.

Syllabus 2. Such listing may state only the name of the lawyer or law firm, the fact that he is a lawyer, his address and telephone number. A listing which is distinctive in form or type violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

INQUIRY

The announced plans of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to institute in the near future a "Wide-Area Calling Plan" which will permit toll-free calls in a 1,260 square mile area surrounding Oklahoma City, and to publish in connection therewith a telephone directory listing all of the telephone subscribers in that area has prompted inquiries by attorneys within the affected area. The Board of Governors has requested a reevaluation of this Committee's Opinion 255 dated August 22, 1968, which sets forth certain requirements and limitations as to telephone listings by attorneys.

OPINION

The Committee has re-studied Opinion No. 255 in light of the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma effective January 1, 1970, Supreme Court Orders SCBD 2212 and 2213 (see 40 O.B.A.J. 2744, 2745).

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides, in pertinent part:

Canon 2, EC2-9:

"The traditional ban against advertising by lawyers, which is subject to certain limited exceptions, is rooted in the public interest. Competitive advertising would encourage extravagant, artful, self-laudatory brashness in seeking business and thus could mislead the layman. Furthermore, it would inevitably produce unrealistic expectations in particular cases and bring about distrust of the law and lawyers. Thus, public confidence in our legal system would be impaired by such advertisements of professional services. The attorney-client relationship is personal and unique and should not be established as the result of pressures and deceptions. History has demonstrated that public confidence in the legal system is best preserved by strict, self-imposed controls over, rather than by unlimited, advertising."

Canon 2, EC2-10:

"Methods of advertising that are subject to the objections stated above should be and are prohibited. However, the Disciplinary Rules recognize the value of giving assistance in the selection process through forms of advertising that furnish identification of a lawyer while avoiding such objections. For example, a lawyer may be identified in the classified section of the telephone directory, in the office building directory and on his letterhead and professional card. But at all times the permitted notices should be dignified and accurate.

"(A) A lawyer or law firm shall not use … telephone directory listings … except that the following may be used if they are in dignified form:

…

"(5) A listing of the office of a lawyer or law firm in the alphabetical and classified sections of the telephone directory or directories for the geographical area or areas in which the lawyer resides or maintains offices or in which a significant part of his clientele resides and in the city directory of the city in which his or the firm's office is located; but the listing may give only the name of the lawyer or law firm, the fact he is a lawyer, addresses, and telephone numbers. The listing shall not be in distinctive form or type. A law firm may have a listing in the firm name separate from that of its members and associates. The listing in the classified section shall not be under a heading or classification other than 'Attorneys' or 'Lawyers,' except that additional headings or classifications descriptive of the types of practice referred to in DR 2-105 are permitted."

The Code of Professional Responsibility, the former Canons of Ethics, and the previous opinions of this Committee dealing with attorneys' telephone listings (Opinion No. 180, approved March 9, 1955; Opinion No. 202, approved November 2, 1959; Opinion No. 233, approved November 11, 1965; and Opinion No. 255, approved August 22, 1968) are each intended to prohibit a lawyer from using a telephone directory as a means of advertising himself or the fact that he is a lawyer, and from solicitation. The Code, the Canons and the previous Opinions, therefore, proscribe any listings which are calculated to attract attention to the listing of a lawyer or firm, are distinctive or unusual, and those which are placed in directories covering areas in which the attorney neither resides nor practices.

The Committee is informed that the proposed area-wide directory will be a single large volume containing the alphabetical and classified listings of all subscribers in the area, without division or segmentation as to cities or communities covered; and that it is anticipated that separate directories for some of the cities or towns will continue to be published although subscribers in those cities and towns will also be listed, as above stated, in the larger area directory.

Because of the importance of the question and the time element involved, the Committee expresses the opinions herein on the assumption that the area-wide directory, when published, will be in substantially the form here indicated.

With these considerations in mind, the Committee holds that a listing as an attorney or lawyer in the alphabetical or classified section of such an area-wide directory when published by the telephone company will not be unethical as to any attorney maintaining a bona fide office or residence within the area covered by the directory. The Committee is of the opinion that the fact that modern technology now permits an expanded ability for toll-free communication between attorney and client should not work to the detriment of the attorney but should redound to his benefit.

The Committee notes that in Legal Ethics Opinion No. 233, approved November 11, 1965, it was held to be improper for an attorney or firm to be listed in the classified section of a telephone directory covering "an exchange area" in which he or they do not reside or maintain an office. The term "exchange area" has caused confusion in the metropolitan areas where many "exchanges" have been in use in an integrated toll-free area of telephone service.

The Committee holds that in view of the expanding availability of toll-free service between communities, the words "exchange area" are no longer a suitable standard by which the ethical propriety of a telephone listing should be judged.

We emphasize and reaffirm that the names of attorneys in a firm may not be listed after the name of the firm, that unusual or bold face type may not be used and that unusual addresses which are unnecessary and which materially increase the number of lines of the listing are not to be used. We reaffirm that the listing of home telephone numbers of lawyers who practice in the area is consistent with professional dignity and good taste, but that the home number of any member of a firm should appear under his individual alphabetical listing instead of under the firm name. Listing of firms which indicate numbers to be called at night, and on Sundays or holidays continue to be prohibited as are listings either for individual attorneys or for firms which indicate an alternate number to be called if there is "no answer".

In summary, we reaffirm our previous opinions with respect to the style, content or appearance of telephone listings.