TX 1964

Can a lawyer add the words "General Practice" to the sign on his office door?

Short answer: The Committee concluded that a lawyer may not include the descriptive words "General Practice" on his office-door sign; a shingle should simply identify the person as an attorney without describing the scope of his practice, though terms like "Attorney" or "Attorney & Counselor at Law" are acceptable.

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.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1964
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer, Smith, shared a suite with a layman, Jones, who was well known in another business; Jones's name and occupation appeared first on the door, with "Law Office of A. B. C. Smith" below. Many clients assumed Smith was Jones's in-house counsel and was not in general practice. Smith wanted to change the lettering to his name, "Attorney & Counselor at Law," and "General Practice." The building barred putting "Attorney" in the lobby directory, and no other office was available. The question was whether the proposed sign was proper.

The Committee concluded that "General Practice" should not be used on a shingle. It acknowledged the office location was unfortunate but said a shingle should simply identify the person as an attorney without attempting to describe the scope of his practice. It indicated that "Law Offices," "Attorney," "Lawyer," "Counselor," and "Attorney & Counselor at Law" are acceptable identifications, and suggested the proposed sign with "General Practice" omitted might serve better than the existing one. The Committee cited A.B.A. Opinion 286 and 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 "General Practice" on his office sign?

A: The Committee said no. A shingle should simply identify the person as an attorney, without describing the scope of his practice.

Q: What sign language is acceptable?

A: The Committee said "Law Offices," "Attorney," "Lawyer," "Counselor," and "Attorney & Counselor at Law" are acceptable ways to identify the person as an attorney.

Q: Did the lawyer's problem of being mistaken for in-house counsel change the result?

A: No. The Committee acknowledged the location was unfortunate but still barred "General Practice," suggesting the proposed sign with those words omitted might prove more satisfactory.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which restricted advertising by lawyers, as applied to an office shingle. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), which now governs signs and similar 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)

Other opinions cited:

  • A.B.A. Opinion 286: cited on the use of a "general practice" sign

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

A. B. C. Smith, a lawyer and D. E. F. Jones, a layman engaged in another business, together occupy a suite of offices in the White Building. There is a common entrance and the suite consists of a common reception room and two separate private offices. Jones is well known in his business; his name and occupation appear first on the door, and below this appears "Law Office of A. B. C. Smith."

Many clients, new and old, have assumed that Smith is new house counsel for Jones and for Jones' various companies and that Smith is not in the general practice of law. Smith desires to change the lettering to:

A. B. C. Smith
Attorney & Counselor at Law
General Practice

The White Building will not permit any occupant to put "Attorney" or the equivalent after his name in the building directory in the lobby. There is no other office available in the building to which Smith can move.

Is it proper to use the proposed sign?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 354 (1966)

ADVERTISING - SHINGLE
A sign on the door to a lawyer's office may not properly include the descriptive words "General Practice."

No. A "general practice" sign should not be used as a shingle. Cf. A.B.A. Opinion 286. The location of the office is unfortunate, but nevertheless a shingle should simply identify the person as an attorney without attempting to describe the scope of his practice. It seems, however that "Law Offices," "Attorney," "Lawyer," "Counselor," and "Attorney & Counselor at Law" are acceptable identifications of the person as an attorney. Perhaps the proposed sign, with "General Practice" omitted, would prove more satisfactory than the present sign. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 285 (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.