Could a lawyer paid to examine titles for a lender solicit the owner to hire him to quiet title on the same property?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer, "A," employed and paid by the Federal Land Bank to examine titles submitted for loans. It asked (a) whether it was proper for A to solicit the owner of a title for employment to quiet title to the property, and to take that employment, and (b) whether such action would subject A to the criticism of finding flaws in titles to increase his law practice.

As to (a), the Board concluded that it would be quite improper for A to solicit and accept the employment, and that such action would merit disciplinary measures, citing Rule 29.

As to (b), the Board concluded that it certainly would subject A to that criticism, adding that a member of the bar should refrain from creating a condition that would tend to bring reproach upon the profession.

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. The rule cited here, Rule 29, belongs to that superseded canon-era code, and the broad ban on solicitation it reflects was later narrowed by constitutional decisions. Subsequent rule amendments and case law may 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 who examined titles for a lender solicit the property owner to quiet title?

A: No. The opinion held it would be quite improper to solicit and accept that employment and would merit disciplinary measures under Rule 29.

Q: Why was the dual role itself a problem?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer would be subject to the criticism of finding flaws in titles to increase his own law practice, a condition that would tend to bring reproach upon the profession.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which made solicitation of business unprofessional, and invoked the broader duty of a member of the bar to avoid creating conditions that would bring reproach on the profession. 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 is unprofessional.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 74: Lawyer business cards in a newspaper column
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 76: Lawyer also practicing as an abstracter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-75/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted July 27, 1934

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

"A is employed by the Federal Land Bank to examine titles submitted for loans. He is paid by the bank for such service.

(a) Is it proper for A to solicit the owner of the title, for employment in quieting the title to his property, and to take such employment?

(b) Will such action on the part of the attorney subject him to the criticism of finding flaws in the title for the purpose of increasing his law practice?"

In response to (a):

It would be quite improper for A to solicit and accept the employment referred to. Such action would merit the imposition of disciplinary measures upon A. See Rule of Professional Conduct 29.

In reponse [sic] to (b):

It certainly would. A member of the bar should refrain from creating a condition which would tend to bring reproach upon the profession.