Can a lawyer run a business card listing practice areas and a specialty in the classified section of a telephone directory or newspaper?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer had been asked by the telephone company and the publisher of a small paper to run a business card in the classified section of the telephone directory and in the newspaper. The card would give the attorney's name and address, describe his practice ("Probate, Compensation and General Practice. Also Specializing in Income Tax Matters"), and list a phone number. He asked whether about an inch of space carrying that wording was advertising prohibited by the rules of professional conduct, noting that some attorneys were already doing it.

The Board treated the question under Rules 29 and 45 (identical to ABA Canons 27 and 43) and the Board's prior Advisory Opinion No. 30. It concluded, first, that inserting the card in the classified section of a telephone directory would violate Rule 29 because telephone directories do not fall within the exception for publishing lawyers' cards in law lists. Second, it concluded that there was no defined local custom in Oklahoma permitting such a card in the advertising columns of newspapers, so the newspaper publication was likewise contrary to Rule 29.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1933, 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 flat prohibition on lawyer advertising that the opinion applied was later limited by constitutional decisions on commercial speech, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), and current Oklahoma rules treat lawyer advertising very differently. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific principle mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer list his practice in the classified section of a telephone directory?

A: No. The Board concluded that placement violated Rule 29 because telephone directories do not fall within the exception allowing lawyers' cards in law lists.

Q: Could the same card run in a newspaper's advertising columns?

A: No. The Board found no defined local custom in Oklahoma sanctioning such business cards in newspapers, so the publication was contrary to Rule 29.

Q: Did it matter that other attorneys were already running similar cards?

A: The inquirer noted others were doing it, but the Board grounded its conclusion in Rule 29 and the absence of a defined local custom rather than in what other lawyers were doing.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rules 29 and 45 of the then-current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which the Board described as identical to ABA Canons 27 and 43 on advertising and on listing in law lists. It read Rule 29 to permit lawyers' cards only within a law-list exception and only where a defined local custom sanctioned the publication, neither of which covered telephone-directory or newspaper placement here.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 29 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; ABA Canon 27): limits on lawyer advertising and on cards outside the law-list exception.
• Rule 45 (1929; ABA Canon 43): publishing lawyers' cards in law lists.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinions Nos. 11 (1927), 24 (1930), and 69 (1932).
• Oklahoma State Bar Advisory Opinion No. 30 (June 1932 State Bar Journal): cards in telephone-directory classified lists.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 30: Directory Display Ads and Lay Adjusters in the Industrial Court
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 35: Newspaper Card, Fair Treatment Versus Removal Notice
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 36: Lawyer Furnishing Wife as Bail Surety for Clients

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-50/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted February 24, 1933

The Board is in receipt of the following request for an Advisory Opinion:

"I have been asked by the Telephone Company, as well as the publisher of a small paper, to permit the running in the classified section of the telephone directory and in such paper, a business card, which would be substantially as follows:

'……………… …………………… Name of

Attorney ……………… Address Probate, Compensation and General Practice.

Also Specializing in Income Tax Matters. Phone …..'

I desire to know whether about an inch space in either the telephone directory or such newspaper (in classified section thereof) with this or similar wording showing the kind of practice an attorney prefers to handle or is specializing in, is advertising within the rules governing professional conduct of an attorney. I notice this is being done by some attorneys and I have been asked to do so, and for that reason, I believe the matter should be passed on by the Board."

In response:

The request involves a consideration of State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Nos. 29 and 45, as approved by the Supreme Court, being identical with the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association Nos. 27 and 43. These Canons have been the subject of several opinions of the Committee of that Association on Professional Ethics and Grievances, to-wit, Opinions No. 11, of May 11, 1927, No. 24, of January 24, 1930, and No. 69, of March 19, 1932.

The question of the insertion of a similar card in the classified list of a telephone directory was considered by this Board in Advisory Opinion No. 30, published in the June, 1932 issue of the State Bar Journal.

Upon consideration the Board is of the opinion:

(a) That the insertion of the proposed card in the classified section of the telephone directory would be in violation of State Bar Rule No. 29 because telephone directories do not fall within the exception regarding the publication of lawyers' cards in law lists; and

(b) That in Oklahoma there is no defined local custom permitting the insertion of such a card in the advertising columns of newspapers, and that the publication of such business cards is not, therefore, sanctioned by local custom, and that being so, the publication of such cards in the newspapers would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 29.