Could an Oklahoma lawyer be listed in a law list that bonds its out-of-state listees if his Oklahoma listing was put in a separate, unbonded section?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer noted that Rule 45, as amended effective July 1, 1936, provided that a publication guaranteeing its listees' fidelity through bond or similar means is not a reputable law list, and that a lawyer who places his name in a publication he knows is not reputable is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Having dropped his subscription to a non-conforming list (consistent with Opinion No. 94), he was offered an arrangement: the list would keep bonding its listees in states other than Oklahoma but would carry its Oklahoma listees in a separate section, annotated that, per the State Bar of Oklahoma's rules, the Oklahoma listees' fidelity was not bonded. He asked whether he could properly be listed under that arrangement.

The Board answered that he could not. A list guaranteeing the fidelity of any of its listees through bond, guaranty, or similar means is not a reputable list, and the rules forbid placing the name of an Oklahoma bar member in a publication he knows is not reputable.

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 strict limits it placed on law-list listings and lawyer advertising were later narrowed by constitutional decisions on lawyer advertising, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the list cure the problem by putting Oklahoma lawyers in a separate, unbonded section?

A: No. The opinion held that because the list still guaranteed the fidelity of some of its listees by bond, the whole list was not reputable, so an Oklahoma lawyer could not be listed in it.

Q: Did the annotation disclaiming a bond for Oklahoma listees help?

A: No. The opinion treated the list as not reputable regardless of the annotation, because it bonded the fidelity of any of its listees, and the rules forbid an Oklahoma lawyer from being listed in a publication he knows is not reputable.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 45 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended effective July 1, 1936, which made a list that bonds its listees' fidelity not reputable and forbade a lawyer from listing in a publication he knows is not reputable. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 45 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended effective July 1, 1936): a list guaranteeing its listees' fidelity by bond is not reputable, and a lawyer may not list in a publication he knows is not reputable.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Bar Op. 94: a law list that bonds its listees' fidelity is not a reputable law list.

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-97/

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 the following inquiry:

"Rule 45 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended to become effective July 1, 1936 provides:

'A publication which guarantees to its users the fidelity of its listees through bond, guaranty, or any other similar means is not a reputable law directory or reputable law list.'

The rule also provides:

'A lawyer who places his name or card in a publication which he knows is not a reputable law directory or reputable law list is guilty of unprofessional conduct.'

In compliance with the rule I have refused to continue my subscription to a list which comes within the interdiction of the rule and of the holding in advisory opinion No. 94.

The list now makes me the proposition that it proposes to continue the bonding of its listees in states other than Oklahoma and that it will carry its Oklahoma lawyer listees in a separate section of its list, with the annotation that, in accordance with the rules of the State Bar of Oklahoma, the fidelity of the Oklahoma listees is not bonded, etc.

Query:

Is it proper for a member of the State Bar of Oklahoma to cause or permit his name to be listed in a list which guarantees the fidelity of its listees, other than those in Oklahoma, through bond, etc., the Oklahoma listees appearing in a separate section of the list with the annotation aforesaid?"

In response:

It is not. The list, guaranteeing to its users the fidelity of any of its listees through bond, guaranty, or any other similar means is not a reputable list.

The rules interdict the placing of a name of a member of the State Bar of Oklahoma in a publication which he knows is not a reputable list.