Can a lawyer have his phone number listed in a city directory when the listing depends on subscribing to the directory in advance?

Plain-English summary

A city-directory publisher solicited subscriptions from attorneys: an attorney who subscribed in advance paid $35.00 and would have his telephone number shown following his name and address in both the alphabetical and classified sections; one who did not subscribe in advance paid $45.00 and would not have his number listed. The inquiry asked whether listing the number under these circumstances violated the Canons.

The Committee unanimously concluded it does not (9-0). Publishing the telephone number along with the lawyer's name in both sections is not a violation, and the fact that some attorneys decline to list their numbers does not make others' listings improper. The Committee did not approve the publisher's method, suggesting the price difference for subscribing before or after publication should be enough and that all attorneys' numbers should be listed if they wish, regardless of when they subscribed. Even so, it held the listing on the terms presented was not a violation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1956, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which loosened categorical advertising restrictions, though prohibitions on solicitation were not eliminated. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer list his phone number in a directory that conditioned it on advance subscription?

A: Yes. The Committee held unanimously that the listing was not a violation of the Canons on the terms presented (9-0).

Q: Did the Committee endorse the publisher's pricing scheme?

A: No. It expressly did not approve the publisher's method, suggesting the price difference alone should suffice and all attorneys' numbers should be listed if they wished.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising), under which the categorical bans of the canon era were substantially narrowed after Bates.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 155: Bold-Face Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 154: Double Directory Listings

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-138/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_138.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Publishers of a city directory solicited subscriptions to said directory from attorneys on the proposition that if the attorney subscribed in advance the price would be $35.00 and for that price he would not only receive the directory but would also have his telephone number shown following his name and address, both in the alphabetical and in the classified sections. Further, that if the attorney did not subscribe in advance the cost of the directory would be $45.00 and his telephone number would not be listed. The question propounded: Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for a lawyer to have his telephone number shown in such directory under these circumstances?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 252 (1966)

SOLICITATION - CITY DIRECTORIES
Where an attorney's telephone number would appear in a city directory following his name and address only if he subscribed for it in advance of publication, otherwise the number would not be listed.

SOLICITATION - CITY DIRECTORIES
An attorney may properly have his telephone number appear in a city directory following his name and address even though the condition on its appearance is that he subscribe for the directory prior to its publication.

Canon 24.

The publication of his telephone number along with the attorney's name in a directory, both in the alphabetical and in the classified sections thereof, does not constitute a violation of the Canons of Ethics. The fact that some attorneys elect not to so list their telephone numbers in such directory would not make the listing of telephone numbers therein by other attorneys a violation of the Canons of Ethics. The method employed by the publisher in the case in question is not approved. It would seem the difference in price for subscription before and after publication would be sufficient, and that the telephone numbers of all attorneys should be listed following their names, should they so desire, regardless of whether or not they subscribed before or after publication. Nevertheless, it is the unanimous opinion of the committee that it is not a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney to have his telephone number shown in such directory under the terms prescribed by the publishers of such directory in the case in question. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 138 (1956)