Can a lawyer pay or validate the parking tickets of clients who visit the office?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it is proper for a lawyer to validate the parking tickets of established clients, and whether the same answer would apply to walk-in clients. The Committee assumed the questions referred to the common practice by which businesses and professionals provide free parking for their customers and clients by validating parking tickets and paying the charges.

The Committee said providing parking facilities for clients is merely a part of the cost of doing business and just as appropriate for a lawyer as for any other professional or business person, and a realistic method of running a law office under modern city conditions. It held unanimously that the practice does not violate any of the Canons, provided that the validating lawyer does not identify himself as a lawyer on the ticket and that the practice is not publicized in a manner that constitutes an advertising scheme. The vote was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1967, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or validate clients' parking fees?

A: The Committee said yes. It viewed providing parking for clients as part of the cost of doing business, not a Canon violation, subject to two conditions.

Q: What conditions did the Committee attach?

A: The lawyer must not identify himself as a lawyer on the ticket, and the practice must not be publicized in a way that constitutes an advertising scheme.

Q: Did the answer differ for walk-in clients versus established clients?

A: The Committee did not draw a distinction; its unanimous conclusion turned on the conditions above rather than on the type of client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation), treating ordinary client parking validation as a business cost rather than advertising unless publicized to that effect. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (former canon)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 338: Lawyer Listings in Telephone Yellow Pages
• TX Ethics Op. 349: Accepting Credit Cards and Displaying a Credit-Card Emblem

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-334/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_334.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it proper under the Canons of Ethics for a lawyer to validate the parking tickets of established clients?
Would the same ruling apply to walk-in clients?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 866 (1972)

ADVERTISING - VALIDATING PARKING LOT TICKETS
It is not unethical for an attorney to validate parking tickets, i.e., pay the parking fees of public parking facilities, for his clients unless such practice is so publicized as to constitute advertising.

Canon 24.

It is assumed that the questions relate to the common practice in many cities whereby various businesses and professional people provide free parking for their customers and clients by validating the customers' or clients' parking tickets and paying the charges therefor. Providing parking facilities for customers and clients is merely a part of the cost of doing business and it is just as important for a lawyer to provide such facilities for his clients as it is for any other professional or business man. Providing such parking service is merely a realistic method of running a law office under modern city conditions and the Committee is unanimously of the opinion that such practice does not violate any of the Canons, provided that the validating lawyer does not identify himself as a lawyer on the ticket and provided, further, that such practice is not publicized in such a manner as to constitute an advertising scheme. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 334 (1967)