Can a lawyer who drafts a will include a clause stating that the will was executed in duplicate originals and that the drafting attorney keeps one?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1964. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether a will he drafted could properly include the sentence: "This will is executed in duplicate-originals, one of which duplicate-originals is retained by X, Attorney at Law, Oldtown, Texas."
The Committee concluded the clause violated Canon 24. It said it was difficult to conceive of any good reason to include the paragraph: if the typed original is available to someone interested in the estate, knowing where the duplicate is kept is unnecessary, and if the typed original is lost, the clause that would have located the duplicate is lost with it. The Committee found that the most likely reason for the paragraph was to solicit the probate of the estate, which made its use a violation of Canon 24. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 will name the drafting lawyer as the holder of a duplicate original?
A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee held the clause violated Canon 24 because its most likely purpose was to solicit the probate of the estate.
Q: Did the clause serve any legitimate purpose?
A: The Committee found none. It reasoned that if the typed original is available the duplicate's location is unnecessary, and if the original is lost the locating information is lost with it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which restricted advertising and solicitation by lawyers, as applied to a clause inserted in a client's will. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.3, on solicitation of clients.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
- MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analog
- Texas Canon 24 (former canon)
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 300: Adoption Agency's "Legal Adoption" Circular Naming Its Attorney
- TX Ethics Op. 283: Identifying a Lawyer as the Client's Attorney in a Newspaper Ad
- TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" on a Lawyer's Office Door Sign
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-280/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_280.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Please advise me as to the propriety of including in a will drawn by an attorney the following statement: "This will is executed in duplicate-originals, one of which duplicate-originals is retained by X, Attorney at Law, Oldtown, Texas."
18 Baylor L. Rev. 352 (1966)
SOLICITATION - WILLS
Use of a statement in a will that the will is executed in duplicate-originals and that one is retained by X, attorney, violates Canon 24.
Canon 24.
It is difficult to conceive of any good reason for a lawyer to include this paragraph in a will he has written. If the typed-original is available to one interested in the estate, it is unnecessary to know where the duplicate-original is. If the typed-original is lost or misplaced, the information in it regarding the location of the duplicate-original is also lost and does not aid in locating the duplicate-original. The most likely reason for a lawyer's using such a paragraph is to solicit the probate of the estate. The use of the statement violates Canon 24. (9-0.)
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 280 (1964)
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1964 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.