Can a lawyer whose office is hard to find put a directional sign a block away pointing to the office, and may it also name the lawyer's notary-public spouse?

Plain-English summary

Attorney S kept an office in a residential area that was somewhat difficult to find and proposed to place a sign on a corner one block away reading S's name followed by "Law Office, one block" with a directional arrow. A second question asked whether that same off-site sign could also carry the name of S's spouse, a Notary Public who was licensed in another profession, together with an indication of that profession and the words "Notary Public."

The Committee concluded that both signs would be unethical. Because the residence was used as a law office, an appropriate shingle could be placed at the residence but not elsewhere. Adding the spouse's name, another service, and "Notary Public" to a sign placed elsewhere only increased the advertising aspect. The Committee cited Wisconsin v. Willenson, 20 Wis. 2d 519, 123 N.W. 2d 452 (1963), which condemned a law-office sign where "Lawyer" appeared on one window and "Income Tax" on another even though the tax service was the spouse's separate business, and In re Duffy, 242 N.Y.S. 2d 665 (1963), for the test of whether a sign is calculated to help someone who has already selected the lawyer find him, as opposed to attracting persons merely looking for a lawyer. Given the hard-to-find office, the most the Committee allowed was a small, dignified corner sign containing only S's name and a direction such as "one block" with an arrow, not commercial in appearance. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 put a directional sign away from the office?

A: The Committee said the proposed off-site sign was unethical, but allowed the most limited alternative: a small, dignified corner sign with only the lawyer's name and a direction such as "one block" with an arrow, not commercial in appearance.

Q: Can the off-site sign also name the lawyer's notary-public spouse?

A: No. The Committee said adding the spouse's name, another service, and the words "Notary Public" only increased the advertising aspect and was even more clearly improper.

Q: Where may a shingle be placed when the home is the office?

A: Because the residence was used as a law office, the Committee said an appropriate shingle could be placed at the residence but not elsewhere.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which restricted lawyer advertising, as applied to office signs and shingles. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, governing communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.5, governing firm names, signs, 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 Canon 24 (former canon)

Cases:

• Wisconsin v. Willenson, 20 Wis. 2d 519, 123 N.W. 2d 452 (1963), condemning a dual "Lawyer"/"Income Tax" law-office sign
• In re Duffy, 242 N.Y.S. 2d 665 (1963), on whether a sign aids someone who has already selected the lawyer or attracts those merely looking for one

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" on a Lawyer's Office Door Sign
• TX Ethics Op. 283: Identifying a Lawyer as the Client's Attorney in a Newspaper Ad
• TX Ethics Op. 284: Goddess-of-Justice Emblem on a Law Firm Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-282/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_282.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

The office of attorney S is located in a residential area and it is somewhat difficult to find. S proposes to place a sign on a corner one block away. The sign would carry the name of S, followed by: "Law Office, one block," with an arrow indicating direction. Is it unethical to locate this sign in this manner? If so, what ethically may be done to indicate the location of S's law office?

S's spouse is a Notary Public and also is licensed in another profession. Is it ethical for the sign, described above, to include the name of S's spouse with an indication of the profession and the words ΑNotary Public≅?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 353 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING SHINGLES
It is not proper for a lawyer whose office is difficult to find to place a sign elsewhere displaying the lawyer's name, profession, and directions for locating his office, and it is even more clearly improper to use such sign when it also contains the name and profession of the lawyer's spouse and the words "Notary Public."

Canon 24.

Both signs would be unethical. Since the residence is used as a law office, an appropriate shingle may be used at the place of residence but not elsewhere. For a shingle to be placed elsewhere and to include also the words "Notary Public" and an indication of another service seems to increase the advertising aspects of the situation. (See Wisconsin v. Willenson, 20 Wis. 2d 519, 123 N.W. 2d 452 (1963), condemning the signs in a law office where "Lawyer" appeared on one window and "Income Tax" appeared on another window, although the income tax service was operated by the lawyer's spouse as a separate business.)

It has been said that "signs . . . designed to invite the public to engage (one) as counsel . . . are not permissible" and that the test "is whether the sign is intended and calculated to enable persons looking for a lawyer, already selected, to find him, or to attract the attention of persons who might be looking for a lawyer, although not for him " In re Duffy 19 A.D. 177, 242 N.Y.S. 2d 665 (1963). S's situation presents a problem because the office is difficult to find, but the most that can be done to indicate the locating of S's office is to place on the corner a small, dignified sign containing only the name of S and the directions such as "one block" with an arrow. Even so, the sign should not be commercial in appearance and should be one calculated only to aid the persons looking for S who had already selected S as an attorney or perhaps those who were merely attempting to locate S's residence. ( 9-0. )

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 282 (1964)