Can a lawyer pay to be listed under 'attorneys' in a commercial statewide classified directory that is not an approved law list?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the Texas Classified Directory, described as a directory with purported statewide coverage that indiscriminately listed various business and professional people throughout the state on a classified basis, was distributed on a commercial basis, and listed only those lawyers who purchased the directory or space in it.

The Committee held that the directory is not, and does not purport to be, a law list, so listing in it is not authorized by Canon 39. The Committee distinguished listings in the classified section of telephone directories, city directories, and Chamber of Commerce directories, which earlier opinions had approved (citing Opinions 6, 30, 138, 237, and 277) so long as there was no distinctive type, marking, or arrangement suggesting that the primary purpose was advertisement.

The Committee explained that those listings had been rationalized on grounds of service and convenience to clients (telephone and city directories) or public service (Chamber of Commerce directories), and that even those had been disapproved where the basis or manner of listing appeared primarily commercial, citing Opinions 237 and 277. Because the Texas Classified Directory is purely commercial, listing in it is not authorized under Canon 39 and would constitute advertising in violation of Canon 24. The ruling was 8-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1966, 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 misleading communications 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 pay to be listed in a commercial statewide classified directory?

A: The Committee said no: the Texas Classified Directory is purely commercial, is not an approved law list under Canon 39, and listing in it would constitute advertising in violation of Canon 24.

Q: Why are telephone-directory and city-directory listings different?

A: The Committee said those had been approved on grounds of service and convenience to clients, so long as there was no distinctive type, marking, or arrangement suggesting the primary purpose was advertisement.

Q: Could a directory listing ever be improper even in an approved directory?

A: Yes. The Committee noted that even telephone, city, and Chamber of Commerce listings had been disapproved where the basis or manner of the listing appeared primarily commercial, citing Opinions 237 and 277.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 39 (approved law lists) and Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services must not be false or misleading) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 39 and 24 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinions 6 (April, 1947), 30 (October, 1950), 138 (December, 1966), 237 (May, 1961), and 277 (January, 1964): prior treatment of telephone, city, and Chamber of Commerce directory listings

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 338: Yellow Pages Listings in the Office City and Metro Directory
• TX Ethics Op. 361: Telephone Directory Listings Across a Multi-Directory Metro Area
• TX Ethics Op. 322: Holiday Greetings to the Public Through Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-321/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_321.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Can an attorney ethically permit his name to be listed as an attorney in the Texas Classified Directory, a directory with purported statewide coverage which indiscriminately lists on a classified basis various business and professional people throughout the state, is distributed on a commercial basis and lists only lawyers who purchase the directory or space therein?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 850 (1972)

ADVERTISING - CLASSIFIED DIRECTORY
An attorney may not ethically permit his name to be listed as an attorney in a statewide classified directory which is not an approved law list.

Canons 39, 24.

The Texas Classified Directory is not and does not purport to be a law list; thus, listing therein is not authorized by Canon 39.

Listings in the classified section of telephone directories, city directories and Chamber of Commerce directories have heretofore been approved as ethical in Opinions 6 (April, 1947), 30 (October, 1950), 138 (December, 1966), 237 (May, 1961), and 277 (January, 1964), so long as there is no distinctive type or other markings or arrangements to suggest that the primary purpose of the listing is advertisement. The Canons of Ethics do not specifically authorize any of these listings but the propriety of listings in telephone directories and city directories has been rationalized upon the basis of service and convenience to clients and the propriety of listings in Chamber of Commerce directories has been rationalized upon the basis of public service. Even listings in those directories, however, have been disapproved where the basis for the listing or the manner of the listings appears to be primarily commercial. See Opinions 237 and 277, supra. The Texas Classified Directory is purely commercial; listing therein is not authorized under Canon 39 and would constitute advertising in violation of Canon 24. (8-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 321 (1966)