Can a lawyer accept a credit card to pay a fee, and may the lawyer display a decal or emblem showing that credit cards are accepted?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney may ethically honor a credit card in payment of his fee, and if so, under what conditions he may display his acceptance of the card.

A majority concluded that accepting a credit card is no different from accepting a check in payment for legal services, being a mere convenience to the client and attorney. A minority dissented, viewing the use of a credit card or other "easy payment plan" as unethical, at least in spirit, under Canons 24 and 11, and as tending to place undue commercial emphasis on the law, citing ABA Opinion 151. On the question of display, all members agreed that to display an emblem or window decal showing acceptance of a credit card would be solicitation in violation of Canon 24. The votes recorded were 5-3 and 8-0. The Committee concluded that an attorney may honor a reputable credit card or similar device in payment of his fee, but may not display an emblem, window decal, or desk emblem showing his acceptance of such a card.

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), which loosened categorical advertising restrictions. Fee arrangements are now governed by Texas Rule 1.04 and ABA Model Rule 1.5, and lawyer advertising by Texas Rules 7.01-7.04 and Model Rules 7.1-7.2; the credit-card display restriction described here reflects a pre-Bates posture. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 accept a credit card to pay a fee?

A: The majority concluded an attorney may honor a reputable credit card in payment of a fee, treating it as no different from accepting a check.

Q: May a lawyer display a sign or decal showing credit cards are accepted?

A: No. All members of the Committee agreed that displaying an emblem, window decal, or desk emblem showing credit-card acceptance would be solicitation in violation of Canon 24.

Q: Was the Committee unanimous on accepting credit cards?

A: No. The recorded votes were 5-3 on acceptance and 8-0 on the display question; a minority viewed credit-card use as contrary to the spirit of Canons 24 and 11.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 11 (a lawyer's fees) and Canon 24 (solicitation, direct or indirect). The modern analogs are Texas Rule 1.04 and ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees) and Texas Rules 7.01-7.04 and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.5 (fees), as the modern analog
• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 11 and 24 (former Texas Canons of Ethics)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinion 151 (cited by the dissent)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 351: Attorney Accepting a Referral Percentage of a Bond Premium
• TX Ethics Op. 357: Whether a Neon Law-Office Sign Violates the Canons
• TX Ethics Op. 354: Using the Title "Judge" on a Lawyer's Professional Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-349/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_349.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May an attorney ethically honor a credit card in payment of his fee, and if so, under what conditions and circumstances can the attorney display his acceptance of such credit card?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 891 (1972)
Canons 11, 24

A majority of the members of the Committee on Professional Ethics feel that the acceptance of a credit card is no different from acceptance of a check in payment of legal services. It is a mere convenience to the client and to the attorney for the payment of a fee.

A minority of the members of the Committee on Professional Ethics respectfully dissent and feel that the use of a credit card or other "easy payment plan" would be unethical, and if the same did not violate directly Canons 24 and 11, it would violate the spirit of said Canons. Further, the dissenting members feel that the use of such credit card device tends to place an undue commercial emphasis on the law. See ABA Opinion 151.

All members of the Committee on Professional Ethics feel that to display an emblem or window decal showing the acceptance of such credit card by the attorney would be solicitation in violation of Canon 24. (5-3) (8-0)

An attorney may honor a reputable credit card or similar device in the payment of his fee, but may not display an emblem, window decal or desk emblem displaying his acceptance of such credit card.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 349 (1969)