Ezel / Ethics Opinions / TX
TX 1965

Can a lawyer let a church directory list his photo, home address, phone, and firm name when the directory carries no advertising?

Short answer: By a 4-3 vote the Committee concluded that an attorney may permit a church-directory listing with his photograph, home address and phone, firm name, and business phone, where the directory goes only to members and contains no advertising; the majority found no Canon 24 violation.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1965. 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 1965
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 Not binding precedent.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

The question was whether any canon was violated by a "listing" in a church directory that was circulated only to members and carried no advertising. The listing showed a photo of John Doe, his home street address and home phone, the firm name "Doe, Roe & Jones," and the firm's business phone. The firm was known to be a law firm, but the listing itself did not state the profession of the individual or the firm.

The Committee split 4-3. Four members were of the opinion that the listing as stated would not violate Canon 24, citing Opinion 237 (May 1961). Three members were of the opinion that it would violate Canon 24, citing Opinion 277 (January 1964) and Opinion 236 (May 1961). The majority view was that the listing was not unethical.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, 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 appear in a church directory with his photo and firm name?

A: By a 4-3 vote the Committee said yes for the listing described: a members-only church directory with no advertising, showing the lawyer's photo, home and business contact information, and firm name, where the listing did not state the profession.

Q: Why was the vote so close?

A: The Committee divided on whether the listing crossed into advertising barred by Canon 24. Four members read it as permissible under Opinion 237; three read it as a violation under Opinions 277 and 236.

Q: Did it matter that the directory carried no advertising and went only to members?

A: Those facts were part of the listing the majority approved: the directory was circulated only to members and contained no advertising, and the listing did not state the lawyer's or firm's profession.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which restricted advertising and indirect advertising by lawyers. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), which prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
  • Texas Canon 24 (former canon)

Other opinions cited:

  • Texas Opinion 237 (May 1961): relied on by the majority
  • Texas Opinions 277 (January 1964) and 236 (May 1961): relied on by the dissent

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Are any Canons of Ethics violated on Indirect Advertising or otherwise on the following "Listing" in a Church Directory that is circulated only to members and contains no advertising:

Photo of John Doe
Home address by street of John Doe Home phone of John Doe
Doe, Roe & Jones
Business phone of Doe, Roe & Jones

in a situation where the firm of Doe, Roe & Jones is known to be a legal firm, but the listing itself does not state the profession of either the individual or the firm.

18 Baylor L. Rev. 367 (1966)

No, four members are of the opinion that the listing as stated would not violate Canon 24. Opinion 237 (May 1961). Three members are of the opinion that the listing would violate Canon 24. Opinion 277 (January 1964), and Opinion 236 (May 1961). (4-3.)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISEMENTS - LISTING IN CHURCH DIRECTORY
It is not unethical for an attorney to permit a "listing," in his church directory containing his photograph, his home address and phone number, the name of his firm, and his business phone number.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 303 (1965)

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1965 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.