Can a Texas lawyer list their name, address, and phone number in a newspaper's classified 'Business Service Directory' section?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry, submitted by the president of a county bar association along with the newspaper page in question, asked whether attorneys' listing of their names, addresses, and telephone numbers under a subtitle in the classified-ad section headed "Business Service Directory" violated the Canons.

The committee divided. Some members thought the answer depended on local conditions, customs, and practices and should be left to the particular local bar. The majority concluded the listing violated Canon 39, which governs the professional card, and some members also found a violation of Canon 24 on solicitation. The majority reasoned that a listing under a regular column headed "Legal Directory" represents the extreme limit of what may be approved, and that the listing here, in the classified-ad "Business Service Directory" section, exceeded that limit. The committee noted the recurrence and difficulty of such questions and suggested the State Bar of Texas as a whole consider the subject. The vote was 6-3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Lawyer advertising restrictions of this kind were also reshaped by later constitutional decisions beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; lawyer advertising is now addressed by ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the committee say newspaper listings are always improper?

A: No. The committee found that a listing under a regular column headed "Legal Directory" is proper, and called it the extreme limit of what may be approved. The problem was that this listing sat in the classified-ad "Business Service Directory" section.

Q: Which Canon did the majority rely on?

A: Canon 39, which deals with the professional card. Some members also found a violation of Canon 24 on solicitation, but the majority rested on Canon 39.

Q: Was the committee unanimous?

A: No. The vote was 6-3, and several members thought the question turned on local custom and should be decided by the local bar rather than by a statewide rule.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 39 (professional card) and Canon 24 (solicitation, direct or indirect), applied to a newspaper listing. The committee placed the analysis on where, and under what heading, the listing appeared. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.2 (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 39 and 24

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 14 (related listing and advertising questions)
• ABA Opinion No. 69 (and dissent)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 29: Newspaper Professional-Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 30: Yellow-Pages "Attorneys" Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 24: Real Estate Loan Newspaper Ad
• TX Ethics Op. 40: Income-Tax Newspaper Advertisement

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-25/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_25.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is the listing by certain attorneys of their names, addresses, and telephone numbers, under the subtitle "D 6 A Attorneys" in that portion of the classified ad section of a newspaper which is headed "Business Service Directory" a violation of the Canons of Ethics?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 206 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - PROFESSIONAL LISTING - NEWSPAPERS
Professional listings in a newspaper under a regular column headed "Legal Directory" are proper. However, the listings in question, placed in the classified ad section of a newspaper headed "Business Service Directory," are improper.

Canon 39.

The committee, as a whole, recognizes the importance of the question submitted, and has given the matter serious study and consideration. Closely related questions have been the subject matter of opinions by the Texas Committee on Interpretation of Cannons of Ethics. (See Opinions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 14) and also of numerous opinions by the companion Committee of the American Bar Association. (See in particular Opinion No. 69, and dissent). Because of the frequency with which such questions arise, and the diversity of opinion in regard thereto, this committee feels that the subject could well be considered by the State Bar of Texas as a whole, where formal action could be taken.

The above question was submitted by the president of the Bar Association of a particular county, who submitted the page taken from the newspaper in question. Some members of the committee are of the opinion that the correct answer to the question depends upon local conditions, customs, and practices, and should be determined as a local matter by the particular bar in question.

The majority of the committee is of the opinion that it violates Canon 39, which deals with the subject of Professional Card. Some members are of the opinion that it also violates Canon 24, which deals with the subject of Solicitation, Direct or Indirect. The majority feels that the listing in a newspaper under a regular column headed "Legal Directory" represents the extreme limit to which such an ad should be approved, and that the particular ad in question exceeds the permissible limit. (6-3)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 25 (1950)