Could lawyers let their business cards run in a newspaper column promoting professional firms to the public?

Plain-English summary

A member of the bar had forwarded a newspaper column headed "When you need PROFESSIONAL SERVICES see these firms," in which appeared the business cards of several local lawyers, and asked whether the practice violated any rule of professional conduct.

The Board concluded that it was improper both (a) to cause the insertion of the cards in the column and (b) to permit their continued publication after learning of it. The first was expressly interdicted by Rule 29; the second violated the spirit of the rule because, as the Board put it, a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself.

The Board cited its earlier Advisory Opinion No. 35 (Ann. Rep. State Bar 1932, p. 214), which had treated a card containing the words "Fair Treatment" as solicitation of business by advertisement, holding that Rule 29 made solicitation of business by advertisement unprofessional and that such a clipping could not be considered otherwise.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1935, 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 it applied was significantly curtailed by later constitutional decisions, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which the canon-era rule predates. Subsequent rule amendments and case law have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer's business card appear in a newspaper column promoting local firms in 1935?

A: No. The opinion held that causing the insertion of the card, or permitting its continued publication, was improper solicitation of business by advertisement under Rule 29.

Q: Did it matter that a third party, not the lawyer, ran the column?

A: The opinion treated permitting the continued publication after knowledge as a violation of the spirit of Rule 29, reasoning that a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which made the solicitation of business by advertisement unprofessional. The rule was drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 29 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): the solicitation of business by advertisement is unprofessional.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 35 (Ann. Rep. State Bar 1932, p. 214): a "Fair Treatment" card was solicitation of business by advertisement under Rule 29.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 75: Title examiner soliciting the owner to quiet title
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 76: Lawyer also practicing as an abstracter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-74/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted December 26, 1935

The Board is in receipt of a communication from a member of the Bar enclosing a column clipped from a newspaper published in this state bearing the caption:

"When you need PROFESSIONAL SERVICES see these firms."

In the column appear the business cards of several members of the bar of the city in which the newspaper is published.

It is inquired as to whether or not the foregoing constitutes a violation of any rule of professional conduct.

In response:

It is improper for the members of the bar (a) to cause the insertion of the cards in the column or (b) to permit the continued publication of the cards after knowledge thereof. The first is expressly interdicted by rule 29 of the rules of professional conduct and the second is a clear violation of the spirit of the rule because a member cannot have done for him what he cannot do himself.

In advisory opinion No. 35, page 214 Ann. Rep. State Bar, 1932, the card published contained the words "Fair Treatment." The Board held:

"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."