Does an illuminated neon sign bearing a law firm's name near the office entrance violate the Texas Canons of Ethics?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether using a neon sign roughly 6 feet by 2 feet bearing the firm name of the attorneys, illuminated at night several feet from the law office entrance, would violate any canon of ethics.

The Committee concluded that such a sign would be in violation. It explained that Canon 24 prohibits solicitation, direct or indirect, and that whether a specific sign violates the canon depends on the facts of the particular case. Quoting Wise, Legal Ethics (2d ed. 1970), the Committee stated that a shingle or other designation of the firm name or the lawyer's name on doors, windows, or elsewhere should be of modest size, and that the test of ethical size turns on whether the sign is intended to enable a person to find an already-selected lawyer or instead to attract the attention of anyone who might be looking for a lawyer, any lawyer. On that test, a neon sign is improper as a shingle or designation of the location of a law office, and the sign described would accordingly be in violation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, 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 held that categorical bans on truthful lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment; the restrictive sign limits this opinion describes were substantially loosened by that decision and the rules adopted after it. Lawyer advertising is now governed by Texas Rules 7.01-7.04 and ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was the neon law-office sign permitted?

A: No. The Committee concluded the described neon firm-name sign would violate Canon 24's prohibition on direct and indirect solicitation.

Q: What test did the Committee apply to office signs?

A: Quoting Wise, Legal Ethics, it asked whether the sign is intended to enable a person to find an already-selected lawyer (proper) or to attract the attention of anyone who might be looking for any lawyer (improper); the sign must be of modest size.

Q: Why is a neon sign improper under that test?

A: The Committee adopted the view that a neon sign serves to attract attention rather than merely to designate the location of a law office, making it improper as a shingle.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which prohibited direct and indirect solicitation and required law-office signs to be of modest size. The modern analogs are Texas Rules 7.01-7.04 and ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising), adopted after constitutional limits on advertising restrictions changed.

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 Canon 24 (former Texas Canons of Ethics)

Other references:

• Wise, Legal Ethics (2d ed. 1970), p. 150 (quoted on the modest-size test for law-office signs)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 385: Office and Building Signs for Lawyers
• TX Ethics Op. 383: Office Signs or Placards Stating the Nature of a Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 361: Telephone Directory Listings in a Multi-Directory Metro Area

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-357/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_357.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Would the use of a neon sign approximately 6 ft. by 2 ft. with the firm name of attorneys thereon illuminated at night some several feet from the entrance to the law office of such attorney and/or attorneys be a violation of any canon of ethics?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 897 (1972)

SOLICITATION, ADVERTISING SIGN

Canon 24

Canon 24 prohibits solicitation either direct or indirect; however, in determining whether a specific sign is in violation one must look to the facts of the particular case.

"A shingle, or other designation on doors, windows, or elsewhere of the firm name or the name of the attorney practicing at the premises should be of modest size. The test as to whether or not its size is ethical depends on whether it is intended to enable a person to find an already selected lawyer or to attract the attention of any person who might be looking for a lawyer, any lawyer. Therefore, a neon sign is improper, as a shingle or designation of the location of a law office." Wise, Legal Ethics, Second Edition, 1970, page 150.

Such a sign as above described would accordingly be in violation.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 357 (1971)