Can a lawyer who writes a letter to a newspaper identify himself as a lawyer, or is that improper advertising?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry started from ABA Informal Opinion 473, which said there was nothing improper in a lawyer writing a newspaper letter on a subject of general interest if he did not mention that he was an attorney, nothing identified him as one, and the letter did not concern litigated matter in which he had represented a party. The questioner read that as implying it would be improper to mention being a lawyer, and argued that on many important public matters only a lawyer is qualified to comment, that identifying himself lends authority, and that suppressing the identification would undercut the lawyer's role as a public leader.

The Committee said ABA Informal Opinion 473 was correct in its express holding. It explained that Canon 37 permits a lawyer to write an article on the law for newspaper publication, so writing a letter on law to the editor is not improper, but that under Canon 17 such a letter can seldom be ethical if it concerns litigation with which the writer was connected, and under Canon 24 it is unethical if it identifies the writer as an attorney where the letter amounts to indirect advertisement or self-laudation. The Committee added that Opinion 473 does not imply self-identification is always unethical, but that it is usually unnecessary, and an unnecessary identification is evidence of intent to advertise or engage in self-laudation in violation of Canon 24. A lawyer can best defend a court or explain a point of law through the logic and clarity of his presentation, rarely needing to rest on the implicit argument that his position is sound because a lawyer took it. The Committee recognized the lawyer's responsibility to assert public leadership where legal training is valuable, but said he should not, under the guise of leadership, seek self-advertisement, and that in every instance whether identifying himself violates Canon 24 is a fact question. 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 a lawyer say he is a lawyer when writing to a newspaper?

A: The Committee said a lawyer generally should refrain from doing so. It is not always unethical, but it is usually unnecessary, and an unnecessary identification is evidence of intent to advertise or engage in self-laudation under Canon 24.

Q: Does it matter if the letter concerns the lawyer's own case?

A: Yes. The Committee said that under Canon 17 a published letter can seldom be ethical if it concerns litigation with which the writer was connected.

Q: Can a lawyer write to a newspaper about the law at all?

A: Yes. The Committee said Canon 37 permits a lawyer to write an article on the law for publication, so writing a letter on law to the editor is not in itself improper.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 17 and 24, and references Canon 37, on a lawyer's public statements about litigation and on advertising and self-laudation. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 3.6, on trial publicity, for statements about a matter the lawyer is handling.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 3.6 (trial publicity), as the modern analog for the litigation aspect
• Texas Canons 17 and 24 (former canons), and Canon 37 referenced

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 473, 49 A.B.A. Journal 462 (May 1963): a lawyer may write a newspaper letter on a general subject without identifying himself as an attorney

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 283: Identifying a Lawyer as the Client's Attorney in a Newspaper Ad
• TX Ethics Op. 278: Prosecutor's Post-Acquittal Letters to the Jurors
• TX Ethics Op. 277: Lawyer Listings in a Business Guide and City Directory

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-273/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_273.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

ABA informal opinion 473 stated, "There is nothing improper in a lawyer writing a letter to a newspaper on a subject of general interest if he does not mention the fact that he is an attorney and there is nothing in the letter to identify him as such, and the letter does not concern a litigated matter in which he represented one of the parties." 49 A.B.A. Journal 462 (May, 1963). This seems to imply there would be something improper if he did mention the fact that he is an attorney or if there was something in the letter to identify him as an attorney. There are many matters of general interest and of vital importance to our communities, states and nation upon which only a lawyer, generally speaking, is qualified to comment. If a lawyer is allowed to identify himself as such his opinion will undoubtedly carry more authority and identify his special expertise in the field upon which he writes. Also, the best and most logical way for his views to reach the greatest percentage of the public is by way of a newspaper. The implication of this ABA informal opinion, if given effect, would go a long way to destroying the lawyer's position as a leader in shaping the opinions of the general public. Lawyers are often asked to defend the courts and to explain the law to the general public so that the rule of law might prevail. Is this implication a correct view of the lawyer's professional responsibility in Texas?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 346 (1966)

ADVERTISING AND SELF-LAUDATION - LETTERS TO NEWSPAPER - IDENTIFICATION OF THE WRITER AS A LAWYER
When writing a letter to a newspaper for publication, a lawyer generally should refrain from identifying himself as a lawyer, and to identify himself as a lawyer is unethical if his purpose is to engage in indirect advertising and self-laudation.

Canons 17, 24.

ABA informal opinion 473 is correct in its express holding. Canon 37 permits a lawyer to write an article on the law for newspaper publication, and the purport of Canon 37 is that writing a letter, relating to law, to the editor for publication is not improper. But by reason of Canon 17, the writing of the letter seldom can be ethical if it concerns litigation with which the writer was connected. By reason of Canon 24, the writing of the letter is unethical if it identifies the writer as an attorney under circumstances where the writing of the letter constitutes an indirect advertisement or self-laudation of the writer as an attorney.

This committee feels that ABA informal opinion 473 does not imply that it is always or necessarily unethical for a lawyer in writing a letter to a newspaper to identify himself as a lawyer. It also feels that usually it is unnecessary for the writer to identify himself as a lawyer, and an unnecessary identification of himself as a lawyer is evidence of an intent to advertise or to engage in self-laudation in violation of Canon 24. The lawyer who wishes to defend a court publicly or to explain some controversial point of law or of constitutional interpretation can do so effectively and best by the logic and the clarity of his presentation, and he seldom should need to rely upon the implicit argument that his position is sound because it is a position taken by a lawyer.

A lawyer certainly has a responsibility to the public, simply because he is a lawyer, to assert leadership in matters of public interest where leadership can best come from one with the legal training of a lawyer. He should not, however, under the guise of asserting helpful public leadership seek self-advertisement and self-laudation of himself as a lawyer. In every instance, there is a fact question whether his identification of himself as a lawyer in a letter to the newspaper is conduct prohibited by Canon 24. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 273 (1963)