Can a lawyer let an out-of-state collection agency use his office address and building directory as a Tulsa branch office?

Plain-English summary

An out-of-state collection agency wrote to an Oklahoma lawyer proposing to use his Tulsa office as its Tulsa address. The agency wanted the building directory to show the agency's name at the lawyer's room number so that mail directed to its "Tulsa office" would reach him, and wanted clients' traveling representatives to be able to call on him about Oklahoma matters. The agency suggested it would send him claims in his territory and that the arrangement might mean a good deal of business for him in time. The lawyer noted he would not have the agency's name on his door and would derive some benefit, but would not proceed without the committee's approval.

The Board concluded the arrangement was improper. It reasoned that the collection agency wanted its clients to believe it had a branch office in Tulsa, so that they would think their business would be handled more efficiently, when in fact no branch office was maintained. Although the lawyer himself was not mistreating anyone, he would be aiding the agency in an effort to sail under false pretenses. The Board cited Rule 17, which requires a member of the bar to refrain from any manner of fraud or chicane.

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 duties not to engage in dishonesty or misrepresentation and not to assist another's fraud are addressed today by separate provisions of the current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 let a collection agency list his office as its branch?

A: No. The Board concluded it was improper because the listing would create a false impression of a Tulsa branch the agency did not maintain.

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer himself was not deceiving anyone directly?

A: The Board acknowledged the lawyer was not himself mistreating anyone, but said he would be aiding the agency in sailing under false pretenses, which Rule 17's bar on fraud or chicane forbids.

Q: Did the prospect of referred business change the analysis?

A: No. The lawyer expected some business from the arrangement, but the Board found the implied misrepresentation of a branch office controlling and held the arrangement improper.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 17 of the then-current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, which directs a member of the bar to refrain from any manner of fraud or chicane. The Board treated lending the lawyer's office and directory listing to a non-existent branch as assisting a false representation to the agency's clients.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 17 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): a member of the bar should refrain from any manner of fraud or chicane.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 31: Law Firm Managing a Lay Adjustment Bureau
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 30: Directory Display Ads and Lay Adjusters in the Industrial Court
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 50: Lawyer's Business Card in a Telephone Directory and Newspaper

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-52/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 21, 1933

The Board of Governors is in receipt of the following request for an opinion:

"I am in receipt of the following letter from a collection agency residing out of the State, and I wish to have an advisory opinion whether it would be ethical for me to do so as they request, bearing in mind that I will receive some business through it.

The letter is as follows:

'Dear Sir:

We have a number of large manufacturers, wholesalers, etc. We have a considerable amount of accounts, secured and unsecured, all through the State of Oklahoma, and quite a bit in and around Tulsa. We would be in a much better position to obtain that business if we had an office in Tulsa. We, therefore, would like to use your address as our Tulsa address, and of course, if and when we would receive any claims in your territory, we would send them to you for your attention. If agreeable with you, please have your building directory show the name of our company at your room number so that you can receive any mail that would be directed to our Tulsa office, and in the event a client's traveling representative would care to call upon you about any Oklahoma matter while in Tulsa; if agreeable with you, please advise us accordingly. This may mean quite a bit of business for you in time.

Very sincerely yours.'

Under this arrangement, I would not be soliciting any business through this collection agency and neither would I have the name of the agency on my door. As I understand this letter, my office will be used as an address for the collection agency. Of course, I understand that I will undoubtedly derive some benefit from this arrangement, however, I do not care to consider it unless it will meet with the approval of the Advisory Committee.

Thanking you to render me your opinion at your very earliest convenience, I am

Yours very truly."

In response, obviously the collection agency desires its clients to believe that it has a branch office in Tulsa, thereby causing them to believe that their business may be more efficiently handled by that agency than by some other. The implied representation thereof is not true for the reason that in fact no branch office is maintained. While the attorney is not himself mistreating any one, yet he is aiding the collection agency in an effort to sail under false pretenses, and in the judgment of this Board, it is improper for him to do so.

See Rule 17 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which requires that a member of the Bar should refrain from any manner of fraud or chicane.