Can a lawyer let the non-lawyer manager of his collection agency send solicitation letters touting the lawyer's collection record?

Plain-English summary

Attorney A organized a credit and collection service independent of his law office, managed by B, a non-attorney. The plan was that B would handle collections before suit and, when suit became necessary, turn the matter over to Attorney A. B proposed to send creditors a solicitation letter describing his association with Attorney A, the attorney's outstanding reputation and years of collection work, a published collections address, and a promise of better service. The inquiry asked whether Attorney A would violate the Canons by consenting to that letter. The Committee concluded he would (8-0).

The Committee was unanimous that sending the proposed letter with Attorney A's consent or acquiescence would violate Canon 24. The true relationship between B and Attorney A was not disclosed in the inquiry, but the Committee added that if that relationship is a partnership in which part of the business is the practice of law, it would also violate Canon 30. The Committee cited Opinions 92 and 119, Drinker's Legal Ethics at 221, and ABA Opinion 225.

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, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer's collection agency send letters mentioning the lawyer's collection reputation?

A: The Committee held that letters soliciting business by mentioning the attorney's status, activities, and achievements in handling collections violate Canon 24 when sent with the attorney's consent or acquiescence.

Q: Does it matter how the lawyer and the agency manager are related?

A: Yes. The Committee said that if their relationship is a partnership in which part of the business is the practice of law, that would also violate Canon 30.

Q: Can a lawyer own a collection service at all?

A: The opinion does not bar owning the service; it addresses the improper solicitation letter and the partnership concern, citing Opinions 92 and 119 on lawyer-owned outside businesses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (solicitation and advertising) and 30 (firm names and partnerships, here the concern about partnering with a non-lawyer in a business that includes law practice). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; restrictions on partnership with non-lawyers).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and MR 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer), as the modern analogs
• Texas Canons 24 and 30 (former canons on solicitation and partnerships)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinions 92 and 119 (lawyer-owned outside businesses)
• ABA Opinion 225; Drinker, Legal Ethics, at 221

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 196: Solicitation and "Feeding" of Law Business
• TX Ethics Op. 202: Subrogation Lawyer Soliciting the Insured
• TX Ethics Op. 205: Bar-Group Referral Service Radio Ads

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-186/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_186.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Attorney A has organized a credit and collection service independent of his law office and such business is managed by B who is not an attorney. It is proposed that B will handle the collection matters prior to filing suit and in the event of the necessity of suit and after procural of authority from the creditor, B will turn the collection matters over to Attorney A for handling. Does Attorney A violate the Canons of Ethics by consenting or acquiescing in sending the following proposed letter by B to B's prospective creditor clients?

Dear Sir:

Since being retired from the position of Credit Manager of [ ] a position which I held since the opening in 19[ ], I have become associated with Mr. A., Building, Texas, whose reputation in handling collections is most outstanding. As you probably know, he has been doing this work for a number of years for [ ] and such stores as [ ] and [ ]. You have very likely received a copy of his address on credit and collections which was delivered at the recent convention and was printed in three installments of the [ ] Review and sent out as a newsletter on [ ].

And now, with me to assist him in this work, I can promise that we can give you even better service in the collection of bad checks and delinquent accounts, anywhere in the entire state. A fee schedule is being sent to you under separate cover. This schedule has been pronounced fair and equitable for all concerned by many company officials throughout the state and I hope that you will agree. I would appreciate your sending me your bad checks and delinquent accounts for collection.

I am ready and waiting to start working on them.

Yours very truly,

B.

18 Baylor L. Rev. 281 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - CREDIT AND COLLECTION BUSINESS
It is improper for an attorney who has organized a credit and collection service independent of his law office to permit solicitation of .business for such service by the manager thereof through letters mentioning the attorney's status, activities and achievements in handling collections.

Canon 24.

If the relationship between a non-attorney and an attorney in a collection service is that of a partnership, in which part of the business is the practice of law, such association would be improper.

Canon 30.

The committee is unanimously of the opinion that the sending of such proposed letter with the consent or acquiescence of Attorney A would violate Canon 24. The true relationship between B and Attorney A in the collection service is not disclosed in the inquiry, but the Committee is of the opinion that, if such relationship is that of a partnership, then this would also constitute a violation of Canon 30. (See Opinions 92 and 119; Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 221; ABA Opinion 225.) (8-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 186 (1958)