Can a lawyer mail postcards endorsing a candidate for office that show his name, address, and 'attorney at law' designation?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer may mail, to persons not personally known to him, a postal card endorsing a candidate for state office bearing a rubber-stamped signature block with his name, "Attorney at Law," and his office address, and whether it would make any difference if the cards went only to personal friends and clients.

The Committee called it a close question. A bare majority concluded there is no violation of any canon on these facts, whether the cards went to friends and clients or to strangers, while recognizing the stranger case is closer (5-4). They reasoned there was substantially no difference between mailing such a card and writing the same message on one's stationery, and that holding it a violation would tend to discourage lawyers from their public duty to endorse and support good candidates, particularly for the judiciary; they did not think any solicitation or advertising would normally be intended or construed.

All members agreed, however, that using anything more than the lawyer's name, address, and designation as an attorney would be condemned. All members also condemned undue and widespread solicitation of support for a candidate where the real purpose was to bring the lawyer's name before the public rather than to secure support for the candidate, though the majority would give the lawyer the benefit of the doubt absent a clear showing of wrong intent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1957, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mail a candidate-endorsement card with his name and "attorney at law"?

A: By a bare majority, yes, where the card showed only his name, address, and attorney designation, whether sent to friends or strangers (5-4).

Q: What additions would make the card improper?

A: All members condemned using anything more than the lawyer's name, address, and designation as an attorney.

Q: What if the endorsement was really a way to publicize the lawyer's name?

A: All members condemned widespread solicitation whose real purpose was to bring the lawyer's name before the public, though the majority required a clear showing of wrong intent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (advertising and solicitation) and 39, and references American Canons 27 and 43. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and 7.3 (solicitation), 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 7.3 (solicitation), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 and 39 (advertising and solicitation)
• American (ABA) Canons 27 and 43

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 168: 'Attorney at Law' Christmas Cards
• TX Ethics Op. 169: Lawyer's Newspaper Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-145/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_145.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May an attorney send through the mails to persons unknown personally to him a postal card endorsing a certain candidate for a state office upon which card he has printed, by rubber stamp, at the usual place for signature the following:

John W. Doe
Attorney at Law
222 Blank Building
222 Blank Street
Blank, Texas?

Would it make any difference if the addressees of such cards were all personal friends and clients of said attorney?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 256 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE
An attorney may mail his endorsement of candidates for public office to persons unknown to him and indicate his name and address as well as that he is an attorney at law. However, to use anything more than his name, address and his designation as an attorney would be improper.

Canons 24, 39. A.B.A. Canons 27, 43.

This is a close question. A bare majority of the members of the committee are of the opinion that there is no violation of any Canon of Ethics under the above facts, regardless of whether such cards were sent to friends and clients or to strangers, although recognizing that sending same to strangers is a closer case. They felt that there would be substantially no difference between sending such a card and writing such a message on one's stationery. They pointed out that to hold such act a violation would tend to discourage attorneys in their public duty to endorse and support good men for public office, particularly for the judiciary. They did not feel that normally any solicitation or advertising would be intended or construed.

However, the use of anything more than the name and address of the attorney and his designation as an attorney would be condemned by all of the members. Also, undue and widespread solicitation of support for a candidate where the real purpose was to bring the name of the attorney before the public and not primarily to secure support for the candidate was also condemned by all members, but in such case the majority would give the attorney the benefit of the doubt and require a clear showing of wrong intent. (5-4)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 145 (1957)