Can a lawyer buy a 'compliments' listing in a high-school football program that identifies him as an attorney?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1958. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked whether three listings placed by attorneys in a high-school football program violate the Canons: (1) "Compliments, John Doe"; (2) "Compliments, John Doe, Attorney at Law"; and (3) "Compliments, John Doe, Criminal District Attorney," the last considered both before the district attorney intends to run for re-election and after he has been elected.
The Committee concluded that listing 1 (name only) does not violate Canon 24 (8-1); that listing 2 ("Attorney at Law") does violate Canon 24 (9-0); and that listing 3 (the district attorney's office) does not violate the Canon if it is published during a campaign for re-election (7-2). The Committee referred to its Opinion 110 as a basis for the opinion.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1958, 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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer buy a "compliments" listing in a program if it says he is an attorney?
A: The Committee concluded a listing identifying the person as "Attorney at Law" violates Canon 24, while a name-only listing does not.
Q: What about a sitting district attorney's listing?
A: The Committee concluded a listing showing only the Criminal District Attorney's office does not violate the Canon if it is published during a campaign for re-election (7-2).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which addressed advertising and solicitation, distinguishing a private lawyer's self-identification from a public officeholder's campaign listing. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
- Texas Canon 24 (former canon on advertising and solicitation)
Other opinions cited:
- Texas Opinion 110
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 169: A Lawyer's Card in the Local Newspaper
- TX Ethics Op. 164: Newspaper Publicity of a Lawyer's Case Wins
- TX Ethics Op. 200: Out-of-City Directory Listing as "Patent Attorneys"
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-165/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_165.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Will either or all of the following listings placed by attorneys in a high school football program violate any of the Canons of Ethics of the State Bar:
Compliments
John Doe
Compliments
John Doe
Attorney at Law
Compliments
John Doe
Criminal District Attorney
The last listing should be considered as being placed in the program both before the Criminal District Attorney intends to run for reelection and after the candidate has been elected.
18 Baylor L. Rev. 267 (1966)
SOLICITATION - FOOTBALL PROGRAM
It is improper for an attorney to place a listing in a high school football program which gives his name and indicates that he is an attorney although it would not be improper if the attorney were a candidate for public office and the listing indicated only the office he was seeking.
Canon 24.
The committee is of the opinion that the listing designated as 1. does not violate Canon 24 (8- 1); that the listing designated as 2. does violate Canon 24 (9-0); and that the listing designated as 3. does not violate the Canon if it is published during a campaign for re-election. (7-2) Opinion No. 110 of this committee is referred to as a basis for this opinion.
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 165 (1958)
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1958 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.