Can a lawyer list in the yellow pages of a telephone directory for another town where he has no office, even if that town has no lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The manager of an independent telephone exchange serving a community adjacent to a Texas city solicited the city's bar members to buy yellow-pages listings in his directory. The city's attorneys had clients in that community, as did attorneys in other nearby cities. The inquiry asked whether lawyers in one city could ethically list in the directory of another, independent exchange serving a community in the same county.

The Committee held it was unethical for attorneys in any city to list in the commercial or yellow pages of another town's telephone book, even if the other town is in the same county, has no attorneys, and its inhabitants frequently take their legal problems to attorneys in the city. It reasoned that a listing in the commercial pages of a telephone book is an advertisement, permitted only to help a layman or prospective client locate or telephone an attorney already selected, not to solicit business. Because people in the small community already knew they had to go to an adjacent town for legal services, permitting outside attorneys to advertise in that community's directory smacked more of solicitation than of serving the public's convenience.

The Committee expressly overruled Section 2 of Opinion 30 and held that Opinion 6 and Section 1 of Opinion 30 apply only to listings in the directory of a town in which an attorney has an office. The ruling was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1961, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 buy a yellow-pages listing in a town where he has no office?

A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee held it unethical to list in the commercial or yellow pages of another town's telephone book, even if that town has no attorneys and its residents come to the lawyer's city for legal services.

Q: Why is a phone-book listing limited to a lawyer's own town?

A: The Committee said a commercial-pages listing is an advertisement permitted only to help a client locate or telephone an attorney already selected; advertising in a community where the lawyer has no office smacks of solicitation rather than serving convenience.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 39, which governed advertising and solicitation, as applied to commercial telephone-directory listings outside a lawyer's own town. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.2, on advertising.

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 Canons 24 and 39 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 30: Section 2 overruled; Section 1 limited to a lawyer's own town
• Texas Opinion 6: limited to a lawyer's own town

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 277: Business-Guide and Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 303: Church Directory Listing
• TX Ethics Op. 250: Two-State Office Announcement Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-241/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_241.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Adjacent to and in the same county as a city in Texas is a relatively large community which is served by an independent telephone exchange. The manager of the independent exchange has contacted the members of the bar association of the aforementioned city for the purpose of selling to them listings in the yellow pages of his telephone directory. It is understood that all of the members of the city's bar association have clients in the community referred to and that probably attorneys in other nearby cities also have clients in this community.

Would it be ethical for attorneys in a city, which is served by one telephone company, to have listings in the telephone directory of another and independent exchange which serves a community within the county?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 320 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - LISTINGS IN COMMERCIAL PAGES OF TELEPHONE DIRECTORY
Attorneys residing in one city may not properly list themselves in the commercial or yellow pages of a telephone book of another town, even though the other town is in the same county, has no attorneys, and the inhabitants of said town, as a general rule, take their legal problems to the attorneys of the City in question.

Canons 24, 39.

It is unethical for attorneys in any city to list in the commercial or yellow pages of a telephone book of another town, even though the other town is in the same county, has no attorneys, and the inhabitants of the town frequently, if not generally, take their legal problems to attorneys in such city.

Listing in the commercial pages of any telephone book is, of course, an advertisement, and it is permitted only in the interest of enabling a layman or prospective client to locate or telephone an attorney already selected. It is not for the purpose of soliciting business. Presumably, people in the small community in question already know that they must go to an adjacent town or city to secure legal services. Permitting attorneys not located in that community to advertise in the telephone book of that community smacks more of solicitation than of serving the convenience of the public.

The committee, by this opinion, expressly overrules Section 2 of Opinion 30. Further, the committee holds that Opinion 6 and Section 1 of Opinion 30 apply solely to listings in the telephone directory of the town or towns in which an attorney may have offices. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 241 (1961)