Can a lawyer list his name twice in the yellow pages, once normally and once in reverse order, to appear more than once?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer may insert his name twice in the classified (yellow pages) section of the local telephone book, once as "John Doe" and again as "Doe, John," both with the same address and phone number and both referring to the same person.

All members except one concluded this is a clear violation of Texas Canon 24 (7-1). Some members noted it also violates American (ABA) Canon 27. As one member put it, the lawyer would be "seeking some distinctive method of self-classification which is different from the general listing of his fellow lawyers" and attempting "to segregate himself for special attention." The members cited Texas Ethics Opinions 6 and 127 and American Ethics Committee Opinion 284 in support.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 list his name twice in the yellow pages, forward and reversed?

A: No. A majority held that a double listing in both normal and reverse order violates Texas Canon 24 (7-1).

Q: Why was the double listing improper?

A: One member explained it as seeking a distinctive method of self-classification different from the general listing of other lawyers, attempting to segregate the lawyer for special attention.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (and references American Canon 27), which restricted lawyer advertising and self-promotion. 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 have been substantially narrowed since 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 (former canon restricting advertising)
• American (ABA) Canon 27

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Ethics Opinions 6 and 127; American Ethics Committee Opinion 284: cited in support

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 155: Bold-Face Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 191: Bold-Face Phone Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 200: Out-of-City Yellow Pages Listing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-154/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_154.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it ethical for an attorney to insert his name twice in the "classified" or yellow pages of the local telephone books, for instance, "John Doe," followed by his address and phone number, and again in the same section of the directory, "Doe, John," followed by the same address and phone number, both names being for one and the same person?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 260 (1966)

SOLICITATION - CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT - TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
It is improper for an attorney to list his name in the normal order and in reverse order in the classified section of a telephone directory.

Canon 24. A.B.A. Canon 27.

All members except one agree that the above constitutes a clear violation of Texas Canon 24. Some members note that it also violates American Canon 27. Opinions 6 and 127 of the Texas Ethics Committee and Opinion 284 of the American Ethics Committee are cited by various members in support. As stated by one member, said attorney would be "seeking some distinctive method of self-classification which is different from the general listing of his fellow lawyers" and attempting "to segregate himself for special attention." (7-1)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 154 (1957)