In which telephone directories' yellow pages may a lawyer list the practice, and can a lawyer list in a suburb where there is no office?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a large city ("Metropolis") surrounded by suburban cities. The telephone company published a "Greater Metropolis Yellow Pages" for the whole metropolitan area and separate combination directories for each suburb. Some lawyers had offices in the suburbs; many lived in a suburb but officed in Metropolis. The questions asked, in several permutations, in which directories' yellow pages a lawyer could be listed, including a suburb where the lawyer had no office and the case of a non-practicing lawyer listing a home number.

The Committee held that a classified directory listing is not a professional card within Canon 39 and, strictly speaking, is advertising that would violate Canon 24, but that such listings are permissible as a matter of public convenience, as it had said in Opinion 241 (August 1961). The controlling question was whether a particular listing is reasonably calculated to serve public convenience or instead to solicit business. Reaffirming Opinion 241, the Committee said listings outside the community where the lawyer maintains an office smack more of solicitation than of public convenience, so a lawyer officing in Metropolis may not be listed in the classified directory of a suburb, and a lawyer officing in suburb A may not be listed in the directory of suburb B or C.

The Greater Metropolis Directory was treated differently: because its primary purpose is to serve the convenience of the entire metropolitan area, a lawyer officing anywhere in that area may be listed in its yellow pages. As to the non-practicing lawyer, the majority found no Canon 24 violation in listing a home number, but cautioned that there is little valid reason to do so if not practicing, and that if the purpose is to obtain business to refer to another lawyer in active practice, the listing would clearly violate Canon 24. The Committee summed up that a yellow-page listing is permitted only as a convenience to the public, and a listing beyond that purpose is solicitation in violation of Canon 24. The vote was 8-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1968, 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: In which yellow pages could a lawyer list the practice?

A: The Committee said a lawyer may be listed in the commercial pages only in the city where the office is maintained, plus a metropolitan-area directory that includes that city.

Q: Could a lawyer list in a suburb where the lawyer had no office?

A: No. The Committee said listings outside the community where the lawyer maintains an office smack more of solicitation than of public convenience and are not permitted.

Q: Could a non-practicing lawyer list a home telephone number?

A: The majority found no Canon 24 violation in itself, but warned that if the listing was meant to obtain business to refer to another lawyer in active practice, it would clearly violate Canon 24.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation) and Canon 39 (professional cards), treating a classified directory listing as permissible only to serve public convenience. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) 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 24 and 39 (former canons)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 241 (August 1961) (directory listings permitted as public convenience)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 362: Telephone Directory Listings Across a Metro Area
• TX Ethics Op. 361: Telephone Directory Listings Across a Metro Area
• TX Ethics Op. 349: Accepting Credit Cards and Displaying a Credit-Card Emblem

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-338/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_338.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it ethical for an attorney who resides in A, B or C, but maintains an office only in Metropolis, to be listed in both the Greater Metropolis Yellow Pages and the yellow pages of A, B or C, listing the telephone number of his Metropolis law office?
Is it ethical for an attorney who maintains an office in A, B or C to be listed in the yellow pages of both the Greater Metropolis Directory and in the yellow pages of his suburban directory, listing the telephone number of his suburban city office?
Is it ethical for an attorney who maintains his office in suburb A to be listed in the yellow pages of suburb B or C, where he does not maintain an office?
Is it ethical for an attorney who resides in any of the subject cities, but is not engaged in the active practice of law, to advertise in the yellow pages of any of the directories, listing his home telephone number?

The city of Metropolis is a large city surrounded by a number of suburban cities, A, B and C, etc. The telephone company servicing Metropolis publishes two directories for the entire metropolitan area, one containing the white pages entitled "Alphabetical Directory for Greater Metropolis" and one containing the yellow pages entitled "Greater Metropolis Yellow Pages." The company also publishes a combination directory for each of the suburban cities, containing both white and yellow pages. Some attorneys maintain their offices in the suburban cities where they reside. Many other attorneys reside in a suburban city but maintain their offices in Metropolis.

A classified telephone directory listing is not a professional card within the meaning of Canon 39 and by its very nature constitutes advertisement which, strictly speaking, would be in violation of Canon 24. However, as we stated in Opinion 241 (August, 1961), such listings are permissible as a matter of convenience to the public. The controlling question is whether the particular listing is reasonably calculated to serve the purpose of public convenience or rather is calculated to solicit business. In Opinion 241 we concluded that listings outside the community where the attorney maintains his office smack more of solicitation than of serving the convenience of the public and we reaffirm that view.

Thus, it is clear that an attorney officing in Metropolis may not ethically be listed in the classified directory of A, B or C and likewise an attorney officing in A may not be ethically listed in the classified directory of B or C.

The Greater Metropolis Directory presents a somewhat different problem. It seems apparent, however, that the primary purpose of such a directory is to serve the public convenience of the entire Metropolitan Area. Therefore, it is our opinion that an attorney officing anywhere in the Metropolitan Area may be ethically listed in the yellow pages of the Greater Metropolis Directory.

Question 4, pertaining to the non-practicing lawyer, is unique. The majority of the Committee is of the opinion that if an attorney is not engaged in the practice of law there would be no violation of Canon 24 for him to list his home telephone number in the yellow pages of a directory. However, it is difficult to perceive of any valid reason for listing in the yellow pages if he is not engaged in practice and one might suspect that such a listing is for the purpose of obtaining business to refer to another attorney who is engaged in the active practice. If so, there would be a clear violation of Canon 24.

To sum up, it should be remembered that yellow page listing is permitted only as a convenience to the public and if a listing goes beyond that legitimate purpose it constitutes solicitation, in violation of Canon 24. (8-0.)

23 Baylor L. Rev. 872 (1972)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - LISTINGS IN COMMERCIAL PAGES OF TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
An Attorney may be listed in the commercial or yellow pages of a telephone directory only in the city where he maintains his office. Within this rule, however, it is permissible to be listed in the commercial pages of a metropolitan area directory which includes the city where he maintains his office.

Canons 24, 39.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 338 (1968)