Can a lawyer let an association publish a bulletin telling its members he is available to handle their personal legal matters unrelated to the group's purpose?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney may knowingly allow an association to publish a bulletin to its members giving the attorney's name, address, and telephone number and stating that he is available to represent any member in personal matters (wills, estates, contracts, business, domestic relations, property transactions, and the like), with members paying their own fees, while the association would represent any member without charge, through its counsel, in disciplinary or administrative proceedings concerning the member's employment.

The Committee concluded that an attorney may not knowingly allow such advertising of his availability for members' personal legal problems that bear no relation to the work, occupation, or profession of the members. It emphasized that it was concerned only with the conduct of the attorney, not the association. It found the conduct constituted solicitation and also violated Canon 32, which permits a member to accept employment from an organization to render legal services in matters in which the organization as an entity is interested, but precludes employment that includes rendering legal services to members regarding their individual affairs. The Committee distinguished the United States Supreme Court group-legal-services cases (United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Association, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Virginia, and NAACP v. Button) on the ground that the services there pertained to the members' occupation or to a cause common to the association's objectives, and that those cases did not address a bar's authority to discipline an attorney for violating the Canons. The Committee declined to decide, absent a prior opinion from the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, whether the conduct also aided unauthorized practice in violation of Canon 43.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, 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), and later decisions recognizing First Amendment protection for certain group and prepaid legal services arrangements that build on the Supreme Court cases this opinion distinguished. Solicitation is now governed by Texas Rule 7.03 and ABA Model Rule 7.3. 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: May a lawyer let an association advertise him to members for their personal legal matters?

A: No. The Committee concluded an attorney may not knowingly allow an association to advertise to members that he will advise them on personal legal problems unrelated to the group's work.

Q: What did the Committee say about Canon 32?

A: It held the conduct violates Canon 32, which lets an organization's lawyer serve the organization as an entity but precludes serving members regarding their individual affairs.

Q: How did the Committee treat the Supreme Court's group-legal-services cases?

A: It distinguished them, noting the services there related to the members' occupation or a common cause, and that those cases did not address a bar's power to discipline an attorney for Canon violations.

Q: Did the Committee decide whether this aided unauthorized practice?

A: No. It declined to decide the Canon 43 question absent a prior opinion from the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (solicitation) and Canon 32 (employment by an organization, limited to the organization's own matters), and references Canon 43 (aiding unauthorized practice). The modern analog for the solicitation holding is Texas Rule 7.03 and ABA Model Rule 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24, 32, 43 (former Texas Canons of Ethics)

Cases:

• United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967), distinguished
• Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1 (1964), distinguished
• NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), distinguished

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 371: Lawyer Referral Service Operated by a Small Group of Lawyers
• TX Ethics Op. 373: Drafting Instruments for a Lay Estate Planner's Customers
• TX Ethics Op. 347: Attorney as Surety on a Criminal Bond and Jail Bondsman Lists

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-346/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_346.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May an attorney knowingly allow an association or group to publish a bulletin to its members stating the name, address and telephone number of the attorney, and stating that he is available to all members to represent them in their personal matters, including wills, estates, contracts, business matters, domestic relations matters, real and personal property transactions, and other personal matters, with the bulletin further stating that each member of the association must pay his own legal fees, but the association will represent any of its members, through its legal counsel, without charge, for all matters involved in disciplinary suspension or other administrative proceedings concerning the employment of the member ?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 886 (1972)

GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - SOLICITATION - INTERMEDIATORS - UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
An attorney may not knowingly allow an association or group to advertise to the members of the association or group that the attorney is competent and qualified and will advise them on their personal legal problems, which problems do not have any relation to the work, occupation or profession of the members of the association or group.

Canons 24, 32, 43.

The propriety of group legal services has recently become a subject of much discussion. 55 American Bar Association Journal 420 (May, 1969); 55 American Bar Association Journal 534 (June, 1969). At least two cases have been presented to the United States Supreme Court, raising the question of whether or not certain persons could be enjoined from alleged solicitation of legal business and unauthorized practice of law. United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967); Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1 (1964). See also NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).

The Committee on Professional Ethics is not concerned with the conduct of the association or group. It is not within the province of this Committee to determine the propriety of the conduct of an association or group of people not members of the State Bar of Texas. The Committee is concerned only with the conduct of the attorney. Our guide for such determination is the existing Canons of Ethics and the prior Opinions construing these Canons.

Not only does the conduct in question constitute solicitation in violation of Canon 34, but also it violates Canon 32 which allows a member to accept employment from an organization to render legal services in any matter in which the organization, as an entity, is interested, but precludes employment which includes "the rendering of legal services to the members of such organization in respect to their individual affairs." (Emphasis added.)

The Committee further feels that the conduct in question goes beyond that presented to the United States Supreme Court in the cases cited above. In each of the above eases, the legal services provided pertained to occupation or employment of the members, or to a particular cause common to the objectives of the association. Also, the Supreme Court did not face the question of whether or not a Bar Association may take action against an attorney for violation of the Canons of Ethics, as distinguished from certain legal controls that may be imposed on an association or group.

To condone the conduct above would be tantamount to condoning the action of an attorney who allows any organization, such as an ex-students' association, to circulate his name as being a competent attorney to represent all ex-students in any legal matters. To allow this would be to open a door to solicitation and would relegate the practice of law to the position of a business rather than a profession.

Without a prior Opinion by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, we do not here decide whether the conduct in question constitutes aiding of unauthorized practice of law in violation of Canon 43.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 346 (346)