Is a newspaper card reading 'General Practice - Fair Treatment' improper solicitation, and is a notice of change of address?

Plain-English summary

A member of the bar enclosed a newspaper clipping and asked whether such an advertisement, or a mere notice of change of address in the local paper's city-news items, was per se unethical and, if so, whether it was ground for disbarment. The clipping was a card giving the attorney's name, the designation "Attorney," the city, the line "General Practice - Fair Treatment," and a phone number.

The Board of Governors concluded the card was solicitation of business by advertisement, which Rule 29 makes unprofessional. It reasoned that the card could not be considered otherwise than solicitation and that the use of the term "Fair Treatment" clearly distinguished it from the usual professional card. Such an advertisement breached Rule 29 and could be punished by suspension from practice for up to one year. The Board added that the publication of a mere notice of removal would not constitute solicitation of business.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1932, 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 The rule cited here, Rule 29, belongs to that superseded canon-era code. Restrictions on lawyer advertising of the kind applied here were later substantially limited by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and subsequent First Amendment decisions; Oklahoma Ethics Opinion 310 (1998) cautions that advertising and solicitation opinions predating those changes may be outdated. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was a newspaper card touting "Fair Treatment" improper for a lawyer in 1932?

A: The Board concluded yes. It held the card was solicitation of business by advertisement barred by Rule 29, and that "Fair Treatment" distinguished it from a permissible professional card.

Q: Was a simple notice of a change of address improper?

A: No. The Board stated that the publication of a mere notice of removal would not constitute solicitation of business.

Q: What was the possible penalty?

A: The Board noted that breaching Rule 29 could be punished by suspension from practice for a period not to exceed one year.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the then-current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which made solicitation of business by advertisement unprofessional. The Board distinguished a permissible professional card or notice of removal from an advertisement that touts the lawyer's service ("Fair Treatment"), treating the added self-promotion as what turned the card into prohibited solicitation. This rule was patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics in force at the time.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 29 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): solicitation of business by advertisement is unprofessional; breach is punishable by suspension up to one year.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 3: Advertising Brief Services
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 30: Directory Display Ads and Lay Adjusters
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 22: Mailing Advertising Postcards to Other Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-35/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted July 22, 1932

The Board of Governors is in receipt of the following communication:

"I am enclosing a clipping from a ……….. paper published during the past week upon which I would appreciate an opinion.

I would like to know whether such an advertisement as the enclosed, or a mere notice of change of address, etc., in the city news item of our local papers is per se unethical. If considered so by the Association, would you go further and hold it ground for disbarment?

The clipping referred to is as follows:

……………………

(Name of attorney)

Attorney

………………..

(Name of city)

General Practice–Fair Treatment

Phone 3…."

In answer to the inquiry:

Rule 29 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Ethics provides that the solicitation of business by advertisement is unprofessional. The clipping can not be considered otherwise than the solicitation of business by advertisement. The use of the term "Fair Treatment" clearly distinguishes this advertisement from the usual professional card. Such advertisement constitutes a breach of the rule referred to and may be punished by suspension from the practice for a period not to exceed one year.

The publication of a mere notice of removal would not constitute solicitation of business.