Can a company employ a salaried lawyer and market him to customers as a selling point, having him solicit business while stressing that he is a lawyer?

Plain-English summary

A firm in a competitive manufacturing business wanted to employ an attorney on a flat salary to handle its legal business. The firm also wanted to hold out to the public, as a main selling point, that it employed an attorney who, because he was a lawyer, could render a service a layman could not in preparing the product the firm sold. Among other things, the firm wanted the attorney to act as a salesman, soliciting business from customers and prospects while stressing that he was a lawyer and that the firm made no extra charge for his legal knowledge or services. The inquiry was whether a lawyer could ethically accept employment under those conditions.

Drawing on its Advisory Opinions Nos. 1, 31, 49, and 64, the Board quoted its statement that furnishing, selling, or exploiting the legal services of bar members is derogatory to the profession and that a lawyer who lets his services be commercialized or dealt in like merchandise is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. The Board concluded that it is proper for the lawyer to accept employment to handle the firm's legal business, but that he cannot, with propriety, allow his professional services to be exploited by the lay agency as part of its selling campaign, such as revising or changing manuscripts of briefs in lawsuits submitted for printing, which would violate Rule 37.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1934, 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. Lay exploitation of a lawyer's services, a lawyer's relationship with a nonlawyer employer, and solicitation are governed 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer take the salaried job handling the company's legal work?

A: Yes. The Board concluded it is proper for a member of the bar to accept employment to handle the firm's own legal business.

Q: Could the company market the lawyer's services to its customers as a selling point?

A: No. The Board concluded the lawyer cannot allow his professional services to be exploited by the company as part of its selling campaign, which violates Rule 37.

Q: What example did the Board give of improper exploitation?

A: Having the lawyer revise or change manuscripts of briefs in lawsuits that customers submitted to the firm for printing, offered as part of the firm's sales pitch.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 37 of the then-current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, which barred the exploitation of a lawyer's services by a lay agency. The Board separated permissible salaried work on the employer's own legal matters from the impermissible use of the lawyer's services to sell the employer's product to the public.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 37 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): a lawyer's services shall not be exploited by a lay agency.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma State Bar Advisory Opinions Nos. 1, 31, 49, and 64: exploiting legal services as merchandise.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 64: Barter Exchange Paying a Lawyer in Coupons for a Commission
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 55: Lawyer as Regional Counsel for a Union Injury-Claims Bureau
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 67: Handling a Merchants' Association's Collections

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-68/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted February 23, 1934

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

"A firm engaged in a competitive manufacturing business desires to employ an attorney on a flat salary. This attorney will handle whatever legal business the firm has. "The firm, however, desires to hold out to the public, and to make it one of their main selling points, that they employ an attorney, who, because he is an attorney, can render a service that a layman cannot, in the preparation of the product the firm sells. "It is desired among other things, to have the attorney in the role of a salesman, __solicit business from the firm's customers and prospective customers, stressing the point he is a lawyer, and that the firm makes no extra charge for his legal knowledge or services.

"Can a lawyer ethically accept employment under the above conditions?"

The principles involved have been fully discussed in the following advisory opinions of the Board of Governors:

No. 1, Vol. 25, State Bar Reports, page 161;

No. 31, Vol. 26, State Bar Reports, page 203;

No. 49, March 1933, State Bar Journal, and

No. 64, December 1933, State Bar Journal.

In Advisory Opinion No. 1 it was said in effect, that it was improper for a member of the bar to allow his services to be sold or dealt in by any layman or lay agency, and that

"It must therefore be held that the furnishing, selling or exploiting of the legal services of members of the Bar is derogatory to the dignity and self respect of the profession, tends to lower the standards of professional character and conduct and thus lessen the usefulness of the profession to the public; and that a lawyer who cooperates with, or makes it possible for, others to commercialize the profession and to bring it into disrepute by allowing his services to be exploited, or dealt in like merchandise, is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the State Bar of Oklahoma."

In the opinion of the Board it is proper for the member of the Bar to accept the employment to handle the firm's legal business; but that the member of the Bar cannot, with propriety allow his professional services to be exploited by the lay agency as a part of its selling campaign, such as to revise or change manuscripts of briefs in lawsuits submitted for printing, this being in violation of Rule 37 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.