Can a lawyer who co-owns an office building call it the 'Lawyers Building' when it is built for only a limited number of lawyers?

Plain-English summary

A city building owned by a corporation controlled by a lawyer and two others was called the "Lawyers Building." It was designed to hold between thirty and thirty-five lawyers and was occupied by the lawyer, his five associates, five other lawyers, and three enterprises only indirectly connected with law; vacant offices for about ten more lawyers were offered to all lawyers. The inquiry asked whether naming and occupying such a building was improper.

The Committee looked to ABA Informal Opinion C441, which said a building may be called "Lawyers Building" if it is designed and actually used by lawyers generally, but not if it is suitable only for the lawyer-owner or a very few local lawyers. The Committee agreed it is not improper to designate a building "Lawyers Building" if it is designed for a reasonable number of lawyers, while, citing Texas Opinion 221, a one-man building so designated would be undignified and misleading.

The Committee called this a borderline case, since it was debatable whether the building's capacity counted as a reasonable number, especially in a metropolitan area. It concluded that the naming did not violate the minimum ethical requirements of professional conduct but did not conform to the general ethical standards a lawyer should observe. It added that thirty to thirty-five lawyers in that community had to be construed as a "limited" number, so its holding did not conflict with the ABA opinion. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 an office building be called the "Lawyers Building"?

A: Under this opinion, it may be if the building is designed for a reasonable number of lawyers; the Committee, following ABA Informal Opinion C441, said it would be undignified and misleading only for a one-man building to be so designated.

Q: Was naming this particular building a violation?

A: The Committee called it borderline and concluded the naming did not violate the minimum ethical requirements but did not conform to the general ethical standards a lawyer should observe, treating thirty to thirty-five lawyers as a "limited" number.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which prohibited advertising and solicitation, as applied to the name of an office building a lawyer owns and occupies. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.5, on firm names and professional designations.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.5 (firm names and designations), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (former canon)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 221: a one-man building designated "Lawyers Building" would be undignified and misleading
• ABA Informal Opinion C441: when a building may be called "Lawyers Building"

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" Shingle
• TX Ethics Op. 282: Off-Site Directional Office Sign
• TX Ethics Op. 263: Firm Name Without a Partnership

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-254/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_254.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

A city building, owned by a corporation, is called "Lawyers Building." A member and two other individuals own and control the corporation. The building is primarily designed for occupancy by lawyers and built to accommodate between thirty and thirty-five lawyers. At present, the member, his five associates, five other lawyers and three independent enterprises (only indirectly connected with the practice of law) are tenants of the building. The vacant offices, which would accommodate approximately ten more lawyers, are offered for lease to all lawyers. Has the member acted with professional impropriety in the naming of this building and, perhaps, in occupying offices in a building so named?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 330 (1966)

ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION
A member who owns, with others, a building designed for the occupancy of only a limited number of lawyers and who calls the building "Lawyers Building" would not be violating the minimum ethical requirements of professional conduct, but he would not be conforming to the general ethical standards with which a member should comply even though he does not have to do so.

Canon 24.

ABA informal opinion No. C441, a brief summary opinion, states that a building may be called "Lawyers Building" if it is designed and actually used by lawyers generally, but that the building should not be so called if it is intended or is suitable only for use by the lawyer-owner or a very few local lawyers. The committee agrees that it does not seem improper for a building to be designated "Lawyers Building" if it is designed for a reasonable number of lawyers, whereas (See Texas Opinion No. 221) it would be undignified and misleading for a one-man building to be designated "Lawyers Building."

The situation presented in this inquiry seems to be a borderline case assuming that lawyers are secured as tenants for the vacant offices, because it may be debatable whether or not the number of lawyers which can be accommodated in this building would be considered a reasonable number, especially in a metropolitan area. The committee is of the opinion that the naming of this building "Lawyers Building," under the circumstances outlined, is not a violation of the minimum ethical requirements of professional conduct but that it does not conform to the general ethical standards with which a lawyer should comply even though he doesn't have to do so.

This opinion does not conflict with the ABA opinion cited above for the reason that it is felt that thirty to thirty-five lawyers in the community in question must be construed as a "limited" number. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 254 (1962)