Does a lawyer's name and 'Attorney at Law' in a dog-show catalogue stud-fee ad violate the advertising Canons?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a dog-show catalogue advertisement soliciting stud fees violated the Canons. The ad named a championship setter, set a $25.00 stud fee, and identified the owner followed by "Attorney at Law" and a city.

The committee concluded that the advertisement did not violate any of the Texas Canons. It added that it would have been better form, and much more professional, if the firm name and the fact that the owner was an attorney at law had been omitted. The vote was 9-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The advertising framework the opinion applies predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which held that categorical bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, so the Canon framework used here has since been substantially narrowed; communications about a lawyer's services and letterheads are now addressed by ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did including "Attorney at Law" in a personal dog-breeding ad violate the Canons?

A: No. The committee held (9-1) that the dog-show stud-fee ad naming the owner as an attorney did not violate the Canons.

Q: Did the committee approve of the ad?

A: Not fully. While finding no violation, the committee said it would have been better form and more professional to leave out the firm name and the reference to his being a lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation), applied to a lawyer's name appearing in a personal, non-legal advertisement. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

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 Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977), held categorical bans on lawyer advertising unconstitutional (noted for currency; not cited in the 1950 opinion)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 31: Listing Deceased Relatives on a Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 44: Large Neon Office Signs as Improper Advertising
• TX Ethics Op. 54: Solicitation Slogan on a Professional Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-28/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_28.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the listing of the following form of an advertisement in a dog show catalogue violate any of the Canons of Legal Ethics of the State Bar of Texas, namely:

"Texarkana's Mississippi Zeb
Son of the Last English Setter to win National Championship
Stud fee $25.00
Owner: (name of individual)
c/o. . . . . . .
Attorney at Law
(Name of City) Texas"

18 Baylor L. Rev. 208 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - CATALOGUES
An ad in a dog show catalogue soliciting stud fees, accompanied by the names of an attorney and his firm, does not violate the Canons, but it would be better form and more professional if the names of the attorney and his firm were omitted.

Canon 24.

The committee is of the opinion that the above ad does not violate any of the Canons of Legal Ethics of the State Bar of Texas. It is also the opinion of the committee that it would have been better form, and much more professional, if the name of the firm and the fact that they were attorneys at law had been omitted. (9-1)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 28 (1950)