Can a lawyer's radio announcement promoting a charity event mention that he will not be practicing law that day?

Plain-English summary

An attorney, speaking for himself over a local radio station, urged listeners to attend a charity golf tournament and said, "We will not be practicing law next Friday but will be at the Golf Tournament." He was not authorized to speak for the state or local bar. The inquiry asked whether the announcement was advertising in violation of the Canons.

The Committee held that the attorney violated Canon 24. It said his reference to not practicing law on Friday was unnecessary and irrelevant to supporting the charity. The reference pointed out that he was an attorney, which was not proper, and a statement of that nature could be treated much like a public announcement of office hours or a change of address, none of which were permitted. The Committee cited Opinions 110, 165, and 223. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mention being a lawyer in a charity announcement?

A: Under this opinion, the reference was improper. The Committee said the statement that he would not be practicing law that Friday was unnecessary and pointed out that he was an attorney, which was not proper under Canon 24.

Q: Why treat a charity plug as advertising?

A: The Committee said a statement of that nature could be considered much the same as a public announcement of office hours or a change of address, none of which were permitted under Canon 24.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which prohibited advertising and solicitation by lawyers, as applied to a broadcast in which a lawyer identifies himself by reference to his practice. 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 110, 165, and 223: impermissible public announcements by lawyers

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 258: Christmas-Party Invitations on Firm Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 261: Advertising a Law Office Open House
• TX Ethics Op. 273: Lawyer ID in a Newspaper Letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-255/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_255.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

An attorney, speaking over a local radio station, made the following statement: "My name is [ ], from [ ], Texas. We will not be practicing law next Friday but will be at the Golf Tournament, the benefits of which will be given to the Charity of [ ]. We hope to see you all there."

The attorney was not authorized to speak for the state or the local bar association concerning any matter and was apparently speaking only for himself. Does such a statement by an attorney, under the circumstances described, constitute advertising in violation of the Canons of Ethics?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 331 (1966)

ADVERTISING
An attorney, speaking as an individual and making an announcement over a local radio station for the purpose of urging the public to attend a golf tournament given for the benefit of charity, may not properly include in his announcement the statement "We will not be practicing law next Friday . . ."

Canon 24.

It is the opinion of the committee that the attorney violated Canon 24 in making the above statement. His reference to "not practicing law on Friday" was unnecessary and irrelevant to the giving of his support to the charity in question. Not only did it point out the fact that he was an attorney, which is not proper, but a statement of this nature could be considered to be much the same as a public announcement of office hours, change of address, etc., none of which are permitted. See Opinions 110, 165 and 223. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 255 (1962)