Can lawyers run a paid newspaper ad endorsing a political candidate that identifies the endorsers as lawyers?

Plain-English summary

A group of lawyers wanted to publish a newspaper advertisement headed "Why Lawyers Support Winterbottom," stating their reasons for backing a candidate for executive office, listing the lawyers' names, and disclosing that the ad was paid for by a "Lawyers Committee for Winterbottom." The question was whether a lawyer could authorize the use of his name in the ad.

The Committee concluded that lawyers are not prohibited from publicly endorsing political candidates; it described a "public duty to endorse and support good men for public office," citing Opinion 145. Whether the endorsement may properly reflect that the endorsers are in fact lawyers depended on whether their dominant purpose was to advertise themselves or instead to lend strength to (and was germane to) the endorsement, citing Opinions 247, 255, and 273.

Two members thought the advertisement was deceptive and violated Canon 29 by giving the erroneous impression that lawyers generally supported the candidate. The majority concluded the ad was not necessarily deceptive, and that while a fact issue about deception could arise in a specific case, deciding such an issue was not within the Committee's province. The vote was 6-2.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 publicly endorse a political candidate?

A: Yes. The Committee said lawyers are not prohibited from publicly endorsing candidates and described a public duty to endorse and support good people for public office, citing Opinion 145.

Q: Can the endorsement say the endorsers are lawyers?

A: The Committee said it depends on the dominant purpose: whether the lawyers are advertising themselves, or whether identifying themselves lends strength to and is germane to the endorsement.

Q: Did the Committee find the "Why Lawyers Support Winterbottom" ad deceptive?

A: The majority said it was not necessarily deceptive. Two dissenting members believed it violated Canon 29 by implying lawyers generally supported the candidate, but the majority left any factual deception question to be resolved elsewhere.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising) and Canon 29 (candor and the duty not to deceive). 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 Canons 24 and 29 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 145: lawyers' duty to endorse and support good candidates for office
• Texas Opinions 247, 255, and 273: the dominant-purpose analysis for self-identification

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 303: Listing in a Church Directory With Photo and Firm Name
• TX Ethics Op. 306: Military Rank on a Lawyer's Professional Calling Card
• TX Ethics Op. 305: Listing Practice Specialties on a Lawyer's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-304/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_304.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Winterbottom is a candidate for election to an office in the executive branch of government. A number of lawyers desire to publish in a local newspaper a political advertisement headed "Why Lawyers Support Winterbottom," stating their reasons, urging public support for their candidate, listing the lawyers' names, and showing that the ad is paid for by "Lawyers Committee for Winterbottom." Is it unethical for a lawyer to authorize the use of his name in the advertisement?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 368 (1966)

Lawyers are not prohibited from publicly endorsing political candidates, for they owe a "public duty to endorse and support good men for public office." Opinion 145 (see Canon 2 re judicial office). Whether the public endorsement may properly reflect that the lawyers are in fact lawyers depends upon whether their dominant purpose in doing so is to advertise themselves or is to lend strength to (and is germane to) the endorsement. Opinions 247, 255 and 273.
Two members of the committee are of the opinion that the advertisement is deceptive and violates Canon 29 in that it gives the erroneous impression that all lawyers, or lawyers generally, support the candidate. The majority opinion is, however, that the advertisement is not necessarily deceptive, and that although a fact issue as to deception could be raised in a specific case, the decision of such issue is not within the province of this committee. (6-2.)

ADVERTISING - LAWYERS' PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT OF POLITICAL CANDIDATE
Whether a paid advertisement by lawyers in support of a political candidate may properly reflect that the endorsers are in fact lawyers depends upon whether their dominant purpose is to advertise themselves or to lend strength to (and is germane to) the endorsement.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 304 (1965)