Can a lawyer use his law-office letterhead for correspondence on behalf of a civic or non-profit organization he serves?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry presented a letter on a practicing attorney's law-office letterhead, signed by him as president of a county anti-Communist association, inviting the public to an open meeting with a guest speaker. The question was whether using the letterhead that way violated the Canons.

The Committee said the answer did not turn on the merits of the organization, so long as it could reasonably be considered civic or semi-civic, that is, a legal non-profit, public or semi-public organization; the same answer would apply to a letter for the PTA, a symphony society, or the United Funds. It framed the issue as one of advertising and said use of the letterhead should be permitted as long as the dominant purpose did not appear to be advertising oneself as a lawyer. It observed that a lawyer is not restricted from being an officer of a civic or social club, working for the United Fund, or teaching Sunday school merely because members know he is a lawyer and his practice may indirectly benefit, and that a lawyer need not conceal that he is a lawyer; the letterhead only identifies him as one.

Reconciling its prior opinions, the Committee held that the line between proper and improper use of letterheads and envelopes for non-profit or non-business correspondence is drawn at the point where the dominant purpose appears to be advertisement or self-laudation that would, or is intended to, influence new, prospective, or old clients. Judged by that standard, the letter did not violate Canon 24. The ruling was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 use his law letterhead for a civic group's correspondence?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The Committee said use of the letterhead should be permitted for a non-profit or non-business association as long as the dominant purpose does not appear to be advertising oneself as a lawyer.

Q: What is the test for when letterhead use crosses the line?

A: The Committee drew the line where the dominant purpose in using the stationery appears to be advertisement or self-laudation that would, or is intended to, influence new, prospective, or old clients.

Q: Does it matter what the organization stands for?

A: The Committee said no, so long as the group could reasonably be considered civic or semi-civic; the answer would be the same for the PTA, a symphony society, or the United Funds.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which prohibited advertising and solicitation by lawyers, as applied to a lawyer's use of his professional letterhead for an outside organization. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (former canon)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinions 28, 75, 103, 145, 174, 175, 188, 194, 196, and 210: letterhead and advertising
• ABA Opinions 60a and 68a: letterhead and advertising

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 304: Lawyers in a Political Ad
• TX Ethics Op. 303: Church Directory Listing
• TX Ethics Op. 273: Lawyer ID in a Newspaper Letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-247/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_247.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the following letter, written on the letterhead of, and signed by, a practicing attorney, constitute a violation of the Canons of Ethics?

LAW OFFICE
RICHARD ROE
1000 E. 5th St.
Smalltown, Texas

You are cordially invited to attend an open meeting of the Blank County Anti-Communist Association at 7:30 o'clock P. M. September 31, 1961, at the Hotel Blank. The Blank County Anti-Communist Association earnestly solicits you and your friends' attendance.

The association is trying to enlighten and inform the citizens of this area on the evils of Communism, how it operates in trying to destroy our way of life in America, as well as destroy our nation. The Anti- Communist organization is non-profit, has no dues and it costs nothing to join and become a member. To become a member of the association, the only thing necessary is that you sign your name to the membership roll of the Blank County Anti-Communist Association.

The Blank County Anti-Communist Association has been most fortunate in securing John Doe as a guest speaker for Tuesday night, September 31, 1961.

I am sure you will wish to attend the meeting and hear John Doe, who is the moderator for "Party Line" on KXXX and is well known throughout the United States, speak out on Americanism and against Communism. You will have the opportunity to see and meet John Doe, a man who is doing a wonderful job in fighting Communism.

There will be a refreshment hour after Mr. Doe gives his talk and the discussion is completed. Plan now to attend the Anti-Communism meeting Tuesday night, September 31, 1961, at 7:30 o'clock p. m. on the Terrace of the Hotel Blank and bring a friend or friends.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Richard Roe, President
Blank County Anti-Communist Association.

18 Baylor L. Rev. 324 (1966)

INDIRECT ADVERTISING - SELF-LAUDATION
The line between proper and improper use of letterheads, envelopes, etc. by a member in connection with correspondence relating to a non-profit or nonbusiness association is to be drawn at the point where the dominant purpose in the use of the stationery of such practicing lawyer appears to be advertisement or self-laudation which would, or is intended to, influence new, prospective or old clients.

Canon 24

It is the opinion of the committee that this question does not turn upon the merits vel non of the organization so long as it is an organization which could reasonably be considered by anyone to be of a civic or semi-civic nature, which is to say, a legal non-profit, public or semipublic organization. Our answer should apply equally to a letter on behalf of the Blank County AntiCommunism Association, the Blank County Integration Association, the PTA, the Blank County Symphony Society or the United Funds. The problem is one of advertising: Can a lawyer use his professional letterhead in connection with correspondence relating to a non-profit, nonbusiness association? The committee feels that use of the letterhead should be permitted as long as the dominant purpose does not appear to be the advertising of one's self as a lawyer. We certainly will not restrict a lawyer from being an officer in a civic club or social club just because he is known to the members as a lawyer and, therefore, may indirectly benefit his law practice from the activity; nor do we restrict him from working for the United Fund or from teaching Sunday School even though the byproduct may be a benefit to his law practice. A lawyer does not have to conceal from the community the fact that he is a lawyer. The use of the letterhead only identifies him as a lawyer. Texas Opinions 28, 75, 103, 145, 174, 175, 188, 194, 196, 210 and ABA Opinions 68a and 60a can all be reconciled, in the opinion of the committee, by a holding that the line between proper and improper use of letterheads, envelopes, etc. by a member in connection with correspondence relating to a non-profit or non-business association is to be drawn at the point where the dominant purpose in the use of the stationery of such practicing lawyer appears to be advertisement or self-laudation which would, or is intended to, influence new, prospective or old clients. Judging the letter in question by this standard, the committee believes that said letter does not violate Canon 24. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 247 (1962)