Can a lawyer be listed under an 'Attorneys' classification in a chamber of commerce business guide, or pay for a special listing in a city directory?

Plain-English summary

The S City Chamber of Commerce published an annual membership directory, the S City Business Industrial Guide, with an alphabetical listing of all members and a classified directory. Each member got one free classified listing, with additional listings at $3 each; lawyers filled out the same form all members used, and one category was "Attorneys - Legal Services." The Guide was distributed to members and sold to about 2,000 others as "A Valuable Guide to Business in S City." A separate question concerned a city directory whose publisher solicited listings from attorneys: those who did not pay were listed under "Lawyers," while those who paid extra received a special listing in major type under the heading "Attorneys and Counselors at Law."

The Committee concluded both listings were improper. It noted that, although the canons gave no specific authority even for a classified telephone-directory listing, the Committee had long treated such telephone listings as proper so long as no bold-face type or special advertising was involved. The Guide listing could not be justified on that basis, and a classified listing of the kind described, with the intended distribution, would violate Canons 24 and 39, even though a lawyer may belong to the Chamber for proper civic reasons. The Committee said Opinion 237 (1961) marked the outside bounds of such listings and the Guide went a step further. It was obviously improper to pay for a special distinctive-type city-directory listing in a category that did not include all lawyers in the city. The Committee added that lawyers with an unusually keen sense of professional responsibility may wish to persuade chambers of commerce, directory publishers, and others not to list lawyers commercially or by vocational classification. The Committee ruled 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 be listed in a chamber of commerce business directory?

A: Under this opinion, a lawyer should not permit his name in the classified "Attorneys - Legal Services" category of a chamber of commerce business guide intended for business use; the Committee held it violated Canons 24 and 39.

Q: Can a lawyer pay for a larger or distinctive listing in a city directory?

A: No. The Committee said it was obviously improper to pay for a special listing in distinctive type under a heading that did not include all the lawyers in the city.

Q: Were ordinary telephone-directory listings still acceptable?

A: The Committee noted it had long treated classified telephone-directory listings as proper, as a convenience to clients, so long as no bold-face type or special advertising was involved; the business guide could not be justified on that basis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 39, restricting lawyer advertising and self-laudation, as applied to commercial directory listings. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.2, on advertising, including directory listings.

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 24 and 39 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 237 (1961): the outside bounds of permissible directory listings

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" on a Lawyer's Office Door Sign
• TX Ethics Op. 286: Advertising "European Claims" in the Texas Bar Journal
• TX Ethics Op. 283: Identifying a Lawyer as the Client's Attorney in a Newspaper Ad

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-277/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_277.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

The S City Chamber of Commerce publishes an annual membership directory known as the S City Business Industrial Guide. It includes an alphabetical listing of all members and a classified directory of the members. Each member is listed in the alphabetical listing and is provided one listing in the classified section without charge. Additional classified listings are offered at $3 each. The lawyer members are sent a form to be filled out so as to indicate the classified section under which he wishes to be listed (the same form is used by all members of the Chamber of Commerce). One category is "AttorneysΧLegal Services." The Guide is distributed to members and sold to about 2,000 others. It is extolled as "A Valuable Guide to Business in S City."

The publishers of a city directory for S City solicit listings from attorneys. Those who do not pay are just listed under the classification "Lawyers," but those who do pay extra receive a special listing in major type and under the special heading, "Attorneys and Counselors at Law."
Is it proper for a lawyer to be listed in the classified section of the Guide or of the City Directory?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 349 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - LISTINGS IN BUSINESS GUIDE AND CITY DIRECTORIES.
A member should not permit his name to be listed under the classification "Attorneys Χ Legal Services" in a business and industrial guide published by a chamber of commerce and intended for business use by members of the chamber of commerce and by others who purchase the guide. A lawyer should not pay the publisher of a city directory for a special listing in distinctive type under the heading ''Attorneys and Counselors at Law."

Canons 24, 39.

Under our existing canons there is no specific authority for even a listing in the classified section of a telephone directory. However, this committee has long held that such listings are proper, and the general consensus has been that such listings in telephone directories as a convenience to clients are proper so long as no bold-face type or special advertising is involved. The listing in the classified section of the Guide cannot be justified on that basis. A classified section listing of the kind described and with the distribution intended would be a violation of Canons 24 and 39, even though a lawyer for proper civic reasons may belong to the Chamber of Commerce. Opinion 237 (1961) marks the outside bounds of listings of this sort, and the present Guide goes one step farther.

It is obviously improper for an attorney to pay for a special listing in a City Directory that will be in distinctive type and in a category which does not list or include all lawyers in the city. See Canons 24 and 39.
Lawyers with an unusually keen sense of professional responsibility may desire to persuade Chambers of Commerce, publishers of city directories, and other organizations to the viewpoint that it is best not to list or attempt to list lawyers in a commercial fashion or under a vocational classification even in membership directories and particularly when the membership directory is intended for use as a business directory or in any way as a solicitation of business.(9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 277 (1964)