Can a full-time corporate staff lawyer who also does private practice put the corporation's name on his 'Attorney at Law' calling card?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer employed full time in a corporation's legal department was permitted to do private practice not incompatible with his duties. He asked whether he could use a calling card showing his name, "Attorney at Law," his suite and building address, phone number, and the corporation's name.

The Committee held he could not use it that way. It explained that a calling card is not for soliciting legal business and may be handed to someone who needs the information, such as a new client, witness, or another lawyer, carrying the lawyer's name, address, phone, firm name, profession, and possibly office hours and little else. For a corporate staff attorney, showing the corporation's name in lieu of a firm name seemed logical when the card indicates the person is a staff attorney not holding himself out to the public. But here the wording implied the lawyer conducted a private practice from his corporate office and would use the corporate-name cards in that private practice. So used, the corporation's name is a form of extraneous self-laudation, not a substitute for a firm name, and the use does not conform to Canons 24 and 39. The Committee ruled 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 in-house lawyer who also practices privately put the company name on his card?

A: Under this opinion, not when the "Attorney at Law" card is used in his private practice; the Committee held the corporate name then becomes extraneous self-laudation contrary to Canons 24 and 39.

Q: When could a staff attorney show the corporation's name on a card?

A: The Committee said it seemed logical to show the corporation's name in lieu of a firm name when the card indicates the person is a staff attorney not holding himself out to the public as a practicing attorney.

Q: What may a lawyer's calling card properly contain?

A: The Committee said it may carry the lawyer's name, address, telephone number, firm name and profession, and possibly office hours, and little else, and is not to be used to solicit legal business.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 39, on advertising and self-laudation, as applied to a lawyer's professional calling card. 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 letterheads), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 and 39 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 92: a calling card is not to be used to solicit legal business
• Texas Opinions 3, 54, 198, 209, and 221: permissible content of a lawyer's card

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 306: Military Rank on a Lawyer's Professional Calling Card
• TX Ethics Op. 291: Academic and C.P.A. Initials on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 305: Listing Practice Specialties on a Lawyer's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-268/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_268.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

A lawyer is employed full time in the legal department of a corporation, but he is permitted to do private practice which is not incompatible with his duties. Is it ethical for the lawyer to use a calling card as follows:
TE 0-0000
John J. Doe
Attorney at Law
Suite 0000
000 County Building
Middletown, Texas
North Middletown Corporation

18 Baylor L. Rev. 342 (1966)

ADVERTISING - PROFESSIONAL CARDS
A member who, although employed full time in the legal department of a corporation, engages in private practice not incompatible with his duties, may not properly use the name of the corporation on his calling card which also designates said member as an "attorney at law."

Canons 24, 39.

The lawyer's calling card is, of course, not to be used for solicitation of legal business. See Opinion 92. A card may be handed to one who has a need for the information it contains, e.g., a new client, a witness, another lawyer, etc. It may contain the lawyer's name, address, telephone number, firm name and profession, and possibly office hours, and little else. See Opinions 3, 54, 198, 209 and 221.

When the attorney is a member of a corporate legal staff, it seems logical to permit the name of the corporation to be shown in lieu of the firm name, since this may be an item of information of legitimate interest to one to whom the card may properly be given in connection with legal matters affecting the corporation, and particularly when the card indicates the named person is a staff attorney not holding himself out to the public as a practicing attorney.

The inference in the wording of the card ("attorney at law") and the inquiry is, however, that the lawyer in question is permitted to and does conduct a private law practice from the office furnished him as a member of the legal staff of a corporation, and that the cards in question (containing the corporate name) will be used in connection with his private practice. When the cards are so used, the name of the corporation is a form of extraneous self-laudation and is not a substitute for a firm name. Therefore, such use does not conform to Texas Canons 24 and 39. (9- 0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 268 (1963)