Can a lawyer list his name in bold or distinctive type in a telephone directory to stand out from other attorneys?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether, where a telephone directory lists lawyers' names in small type in the classified section, it violates the Canons for attorneys to have their names listed in heavy black type in the general directory.

All members of the Committee agreed that having a lawyer's name listed in "heavy black," "bold faced," or other distinctive form of type violates Texas Canon 24 (8-0). The Committee cited its own Opinion 107 as having already decided the question, and one member cited American Ethics Committee Opinions 53, 223, and 284 as supporting the same view.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 use bold or heavy type in a phone directory listing?

A: No. The Committee unanimously held that a name listed in heavy black, bold-faced, or other distinctive type violates Texas Canon 24 (8-0).

Q: What made the bold listing improper rather than the listing itself?

A: The problem was the distinctive form of type setting the lawyer's name apart from the normal listings of other attorneys; the Committee treated that as the violation, citing its earlier Opinion 107.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, 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)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Ethics Opinion 107: cited as having already decided the question
• American Ethics Committee Opinions 53, 223, and 284: cited by one member in support

See also

• 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-155/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_155.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Where a telephone directory lists the names of lawyers in the classified section in small type, is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for attorneys to have their names listed in heavy black type in the general directory?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 261 (1966)

SOLICITATION - CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT - TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
It is improper for an attorney to list his name in a form of type which distinguishes it from the normal listing of other attorneys in the classified section of a telephone directory.

Canon 24.

All members of the committee are in accord that it is a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney to have his name listed in "heavy black," "bold faced," or other distinctive form of type, as being a violation of Texas Canon 24. This committee's Opinion 107 is cited as having already determined such question. One member also cites Opinions 53, 223 and 284 of the American Ethics Committee as supporting this view. (8-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 155 (1957)