Is a large, eye-catching attorney 'shingle' placed among commercial signs near a shopping-center thoroughfare, far from the office, improper advertising?

Plain-English summary

Two attorneys had offices in a multi-story building in a shopping-center area. Their "shingle" sat at the bottom of a complex of eight signs close to the thoroughfare adjacent to the shopping-center parking lot, roughly 150 feet from the commercial building where their offices were located. The lettering was prominent and as eye-catching as the commercial advertisements around it, and those commercial signs were intended to advertise to the general public using the thoroughfare.

The committee analyzed the question under Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A)(3), which authorizes an attorney to use a sign on or near the door of his office and in the building directory so persons seeking the attorney can locate the office. It said the propriety of a particular shingle turns on whether the sign provides a service to the lawyer's clients or is a form of advertising.

The committee found that, given its location among commercial advertising, its size and lettering, and its distance from the attorneys' office, the shingle was not calculated to help clients locate the office but instead amounted to a public notice that Mr. A and Mr. B are lawyers with offices somewhere in the shopping center. It concluded the shingle constituted a public solicitation of business and was a flagrant violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and its disciplinary rules on advertising.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, 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 signage rules 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What kind of office sign did the rule permit?

A: Under DR 2-102(A)(3), the committee said an attorney may use a sign on or near the door of his office and in the building directory so that persons seeking the attorney can locate the office.

Q: Why was this particular shingle improper?

A: Because of its eye-catching size and lettering, its placement among eight commercial advertising signs by the thoroughfare, and its distance (about 150 feet) from the office, the committee found it did not help clients locate the office but was a public solicitation of business.

Q: How did the committee decide whether a sign is permissible?

A: It said the test is whether the sign provides a service to the lawyer's clients in locating the office or is instead a form of advertising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A)(3), which permits an office sign and a building-directory listing to help clients find the lawyer's office, distinguishing such locator signage from prohibited advertising and solicitation. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 2 (Code of Professional Responsibility): limits on advertising and solicitation by lawyers.
• DR 2-102(A)(3) (Code of Professional Responsibility): permits a sign on or near the office door and in the building directory to help clients locate the office.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 236: Signs and lettering on office doors and windows
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 255: Telephone directory listing details
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 235: Lawyer publicity about pending litigation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-267/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted July 28, 1972

OPINION

The Committee has been presented with a factual question involving the propriety of the professional "shingle" of two attorneys whose offices are located in a multi-story business building within a shopping center area. The "shingle" is located at the bottom of a complex of signs close to the thoroughfare which is adjacent to the shopping center parking lot and approximately 150 feet from the commercial building where the offices of the attorneys are located. The "shingle" is designed with lettering which is prominent and as "eye-catching" as are the commercial advertisements in the eight sign complex. The commercial signs are intended to constitute advertising to the general public which uses the thoroughfare adjacent to the shopping center in question.

The "shingle" involved in this matter, considering its location among advertising by commercial establishments, the size of the sign itself and the lettering appearing thereon and the proximity of the building where the attorneys' offices are situated, does not aid a client seeking the lawyers involved to locate the attorneys. This "shingle" is rather a public notice that Mr. A and Mr. B are lawyers whose offices are located somewhere in the subject shopping center.

Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is pertinent to this matter. Disciplinary Rule 2_102(A)(3) authorizes an attorney to use a sign or "shingle" on or near the door of his office and in the building directory so that persons seeking the attorney may locate the attorney's office.

The propriety of a particular "shingle" or other locator information with respect to an attorney's office is determined by whether the use of the "shingle" in question provides a service to the attorney's clients or is a form advertising.

The context within which the "single" in question appears, its size and its location both respect to the public street and the attorneys' office within the adjacent commerical [sic] building is not calculated to provide a service to clients seeking to locate the attorneys' office but in fact constitutes a public solicitation of business by the attorneys involved.

This "shingle" is a flagrant violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the disciplinary Rules of the Code pertinent to advertising by attorneys.