Could a lawyer pay to place his card in a legal directory that the publisher distributes to laypeople and businesses likely to need a lawyer?

Plain-English summary

The query described a lawyer paying for the privilege of placing his card in a legal directory or list, published periodically, that the publisher distributes among laypeople or corporations likely to require legal services in various parts of the country. The question was whether the lawyer was guilty of unprofessional conduct.

The Board concluded that where the lawyer knowingly subscribes to such a list, he is. It reasoned that the directory described is not a reputable law list because it is engaged in solicitation of business for its lawyer subscribers, and that a publisher who circulates a list among laypeople who are prospective clients is doing for the lawyer what the lawyer cannot do for himself without violating Rule 29. The Board directed that the opinion apply only to publications issued after June 30, 1936.

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 ban on solicitation it applied was later narrowed by constitutional decisions on lawyer advertising and solicitation, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was it unprofessional to be listed in a legal directory sent to potential clients?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where the lawyer knowingly subscribed. The Board held that such a directory solicits business for its subscribers and so is not a reputable law list.

Q: Why did circulation to laypeople make the difference?

A: The opinion reasoned that the publisher, by circulating the list among prospective lay clients, does for the lawyer what he cannot do himself without violating Rule 29's bar on solicitation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 29 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, the bar on solicitation of professional employment, drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. It 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): condemns advertising and solicitation of professional employment.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 94: A name in a law list that bonds its listees
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 96: What makes a law list reputable under Rule 45

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-95/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 22, 1935

Query:

"A lawyer pays for the privilege of placing his card in a legal directory or list published annually, semi-annually, or quarterly. The directory or list is caused to be distributed by the publisher among laymen or corporations likely to require legal services in various parts of the country. Is the lawyer guilty of unprofessional conduct?"

In response:

1. Where he knowingly subscribes to such list or directory the lawyer is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The directory or list described in the question is not a reputable law list because it is engaged in solicitation of business for its lawyer subscribers. The publisher who causes a list to be circulated among laymen who are prospective clients is doing for the lawyer that which he cannot do for himself without violating Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Oklahoma.

This opinion to be applicable only as to publications subsequent to June 30, 1936.