Could a lawyer also work as an abstracter, holding out to the public and practicing both callings at the same time?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a member of the bar following the profession of an abstracter could combine that calling with holding himself out to the public as an attorney at law and actually practicing both callings at the same time.

The Board answered by reference to its prior opinions: Advisory Opinion No. 67 (March 1934 Bar Journal), Advisory Opinion No. 64 (December 1933 Bar Journal), and Advisory Opinion No. 31 (Vol. 26 State Bar Reports 203). Quoting Opinion No. 67, it stated that though a lawyer is not prohibited by any accepted standard from engaging in a lay business while practicing law, he must conduct that lay business with due observance of the standards of conduct required of a lawyer; he must not use the lay business as a means of obtaining law business, nor use the fact that he is a member of the bar as a means to obtain lay business. The Board restated that a member of the bar should avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety.

In the last analysis, the Board concluded, again quoting Opinion No. 67, a member of the bar who assumed the dual relationship described "will undoubtedly be under the suspicion of improper conduct."

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. Its treatment of a lawyer engaging in a separate business belongs to that superseded canon-era framework. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 an Oklahoma lawyer also run an abstracting business in 1934?

A: Yes, the opinion said a lawyer was not prohibited from engaging in a lay business while practicing law, but had to observe the standards required of a lawyer in conducting it.

Q: What limits did the opinion place on the dual practice?

A: The lawyer could not use the lay business to obtain law business, nor use bar membership to obtain lay business, and the Board warned that one who assumed the dual relationship would undoubtedly be under suspicion of improper conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct; it rested on the bar's prior advisory opinions (Nos. 67, 64, and 31) and the canon-era principle that a member of the bar must avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 67 (March 1934 Bar Journal): a lawyer may engage in a lay business but must not use it to obtain law business or use bar membership to obtain lay business.
• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 64 (December 1933 Bar Journal).
• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 31 (Vol. 26 State Bar Reports 203).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 75: Title examiner soliciting the owner to quiet title
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 74: Lawyer business cards in a newspaper column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-76/

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 inquiry:

"May a member of the Bar following the profession of an abstracter, combine his calling with the additional one of holding himself out to the public as an Attorney at Law and actually practicing both callings at the same time?"

In response:

The question involved has been considered in:

Advisory Opinion No. 67 (March 1934, Bar Journal).

Advisory Opinion No. 64 (December 1933, Bar Journal).

Advisory Opinion No. 31 (Vol. 26 State Bar Reports 203).

In Advisory Opinion No. 67 it was said:

"Though a lawyer is not prohibited by any accepted standard from engaging in a lay business while practicing law, he must conduct such lay business with due observance of the standards of conduct required of him as a lawyer; and that in conducting such a lay business, he must not use it as a means of obtaining law business, nor must he use the fact that he is a member of the bar as a means to obtain lay business. In this connection the Board restates what it has had repeated occasion to state, 'a member of the bar should not only avoid all impropriety, but should likewise avoid the appearance of impropriety'."

In the last analysis, a member of the Bar who assumes the relationship set out in the inquiry under consideration, as also said in Advisory Opinion No. 67, "will undoubtedly be under the suspicion of improper conduct."