Can a lawyer who owns an abstract company route title work between the company and his law practice, post his law sign under the company's sign, and let his name run in the company's newspaper ads?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned an attorney who owns or manages an abstract company that handles 99% of the local abstract and title insurance business, with law work and title work passing back and forth between the two. The Committee resolved three sub-questions.

First, the "feeding" of law business from the abstract company to a lawyer who controls the company violates Texas Canons 24 and 25 (7-0). The Committee added that nothing prevents a lawyer from owning and operating an abstract company if he does not use it as a feeder or solicitor for his law business and does not permit it to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, citing Opinions 92 and 119.

Second, the attorney's professional sign at the front of the building, below the abstract company's more prominent sign at the top, was held a violation of Canon 24, assuming the attorney's office is in the same building with the abstract company; the Committee called this a closer question and split 4-3, citing Opinion 142. Third, the attorney's name may appear in a newspaper advertisement by the abstract company, even in a sparsely populated community where he is well known as an attorney, provided he does not list himself as an attorney in the advertisement (7-0).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 own an abstract or title company?

A: The Committee said nothing prevents a lawyer from owning and operating an abstract company, provided he does not use it as a feeder or solicitor for his law business and does not permit it to engage in the unauthorized practice of law (citing Opinions 92 and 119).

Q: Can a lawyer route title and law work between himself and an abstract company he controls?

A: No. The Committee concluded that "feeding" law business between the lawyer and an abstract company he owns or manages violates Canons 24 and 25 (7-0).

Q: Can the lawyer post his law sign on the same building as the abstract company?

A: The Committee held that a professional sign at the front of the building, below the company's more prominent sign, violates Canon 24, assuming the office is in the same building; it called this a closer question and split 4-3.

Q: Can the lawyer's name appear in the abstract company's newspaper advertising?

A: Yes, provided he does not list himself as an attorney in the advertisement; the Committee allowed this even in a small community where he is well known as a lawyer (7-0).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (advertising and self-laudation) and 25 (stirring up litigation and solicitation, including "feeding"). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rules 7.2 (advertising) and 7.3 (solicitation of clients), along with the unauthorized-practice limits the opinion notes.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 (advertising) and MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analogs
• Texas Canons 24 and 25 (former canons on advertising and solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinions 92 and 119: a lawyer may own an abstract company if not used as a feeder or for unauthorized practice
• Texas Opinion 142: a similar sign situation

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 194: Advertising a Non-Law Business
• TX Ethics Op. 253: Lawyer-Owned Abstract Company and Property Reports
• TX Ethics Op. 211: Firm Stock in a Client Loan Company

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-196/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_196.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

If an attorney owns or manages an abstract company and 99% of the local abstract and title insurance business and law work go either from the attorney to the abstract company or from the abstract company to the attorney, is such feeding of the business back and forth ethical?
In respect to question No. 1 would it be proper for the attorney to have his professional sign at the front of the abstract company building below the window with the abstract company sign at the top of the building in substantially larger letters?
In respect to questions Nos. 1 and 2, would it be proper for the attorney to have his name, alone, in a newspaper advertisement by the abstract company in a sparsely populated community where he is well known as an attorney?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 287 (1966)

SOLICITATION - STIRRING UP LITIGATION - PARTICIPATION IN OUTSIDE BUSINESS - "FEEDING" OF LAW BUSINESS
The "feeding" of law business from an abstract company to an attorney who owns or manages the abstract company is improper.

SOLICITATION - SIGNS - JOINT OCCUPANTS
An attorney, who occupies an office in the same building with an abstract company owned or managed by the attorney, may not have his professional sign at the front of the building below the abstract company's more prominent sign at the top of the building.

OUTSIDE BUSINESS - ADVERTISING - NEWSPAPERS
An attorney may have his name appear in a newspaper advertisement by an abstract company which he owns or manages, provided he does not list himself therein as an attorney, even though located in a sparsely populated community where he is well known as an attorney.

Canons 24, 25.

The "feeding" of law business from an abstract company to a lawyer who controls the company violates Texas Canons 24 and 25. We know of nothing to prevent a lawyer from owning and operating an abstract company if he does not use it as a feeder or solicitor for his law business, and does not permit it to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. See Opinions 92 and 119. (7-0.)
While presenting a closer question, this is held to be a violation of Canon 24, assuming that the office of the attorney is in the same building with the abstract company. See Opinion 142, dealing with a similar situation. (4-3.)
In this particular situation the conduct does not appear to be unethical, provided the attorney does not have his name as an attorney in such advertisement. (7-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 196 (1960)