Can a lawyer run a Texas Bar Journal notice advertising that he handles "European claims"?

Plain-English summary

The question was whether an attorney could run a Texas Bar Journal notice reading "European Claims / Joe Doaks, Attorney" with his address.

A majority of the Committee concluded the advertisement was not within the exception authorized by Canon 42 (an exception to Canon 24's advertising bar). In the majority's view, Canon 42 applies only where the lawyer handles European claims solely through and directly with other lawyers and never for individual clients, citing Texas Opinions 10 and 112 and A.B.A. Opinion 183, and noting Drinker's suggestion that such an advertisement represents that the lawyer will not take cases in the field from lay clients. The majority also concluded that handling European claims is not a specialized legal service, citing several Texas opinions and A.B.A. Opinion 263 (a specialist in the laws of China is not rendering a specialized legal service), while conceding the notice itself was brief and dignified.

A minority believed that handling European claims is a specialized legal service, so that Canon 42 would permit the advertisement. The vote was 6-3.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer advertise "European claims" in the Texas Bar Journal?

A: By a 6-3 vote the Committee said no. The majority found the Canon 42 exception did not cover the notice because the service was not limited to other lawyers and was not a specialized legal service.

Q: When does the Canon 42 specialist exception apply?

A: The majority said it applies only where the lawyer handles the work solely through and directly with other lawyers, never for individual lay clients.

Q: Why wasn't handling European claims a "specialized legal service"?

A: The majority relied on prior Texas opinions and A.B.A. Opinion 263, which treated a focus on a particular body of foreign law (there, the laws of China) as not a specialized legal service.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising) and Canon 42 (the exception permitting certain notices of specialized legal service rendered to other lawyers). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 and 42 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• A.B.A. Opinion 183: confining the field practice to acting as counsel to other lawyers
• A.B.A. Opinion 263: a specialist in foreign law is not rendering a specialized legal service
• Texas Opinions 2, 10, 15, 62, 112, 221, and 222: relied on by the majority

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 289: Registered Patent Attorney Listing and Specialization in Texas
• TX Ethics Op. 305: Listing Practice Specialties on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 291: Academic and C.P.A. Initials on a Lawyer's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-286/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_286.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it proper for an attorney to carry the following advertisement in the Texas Bar Journal?
"European Claims
Joe Doaks, Attorney
Usual Building
Normal City, Texas"

18 Baylor L. Rev. 355 (1966)

ADVERTISEMENTS - SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES - EUROPEAN CLAIMS
A member may not insert in the Texas Bar Journal a notice that he is engaged in handling European claims.

Canon 42.

A majority of the committee believe that the advertisement is not within the exception authorized by Canon 42 unless the attorney is engaged in rendering this service "only" and "directly" to other lawyers. Their view is that Canon 42 does not apply unless the lawyer handles European claims only through and directly with other lawyers and never for individual clients; Texas Opinions 10 and 112 and A.B.A. Opinion 183 (the lawyer must confine his practice in the field in question to "acting as counsel to other lawyers"). Generally see Drinker, Legal Ethics 242 (1953) suggesting that an advertisement under such canon is a representation that the lawyer will not accept cases in this field from lay clients. Their view is also that the handling of European claims is not a specialized legal service, citing Texas Opinions 2, 10, 15, 62, 112, 221, and 222, and A.B.A. Opinion 263 (a specialist in the laws of China is not rendering a specialized legal service). They concede that the notice in question is a brief and dignified notice.

A minority of the committee believe that the handling of "European claims" is a specialized legal service and that accordingly Canon 42, as an exception to Canon 24, permits the proposed advertisement to be inserted in the Texas Bar Journal. Cf. Opinion 77. (6-3.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 286 (1964)