What kinds of exterior office signs may a Texas lawyer use, and are free-standing, rooftop, awning, or window signs allowed?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer could use four kinds of office signs bearing only the firm name and address: a free-standing sign not attached to the building, a sign extending above the roofline, a sign on an awning or canopy in front of the office, and a window sign not on or near the office door. The Committee concluded that none of the four could be ethically justified under the Code.

The Committee read DR 2-102(A)(3) to permit only a sign "on or near a door of the office" or in the building directory, and treated each of the four signs as a per se violation. It reasoned that a law-office sign should serve only to identify the office for a person already looking for that particular lawyer, not to attract the lay public, and that "near" the door means immediately adjacent or as reasonably close as practicable. It tied this to EC 2-9 and EC 2-10 on the traditional ban on advertising and to Canon 24, the predecessor rule. Reviewing its own prior sign opinions (Opinion 38, largely overruled by Opinion 44, and Opinion 357), and ABA Informal Decisions 510, 868, and C800, the Committee found each of the four signs would be calculated to attract a person who had not selected a lawyer and would approach commercial advertising.

The Committee drew one distinction. Where an attorney's name appears on a free-standing sign together with other building tenants, listed as part of a building directory, that is not an ethical violation, citing ABA Informal Decision 1214. But if the attorney aided in constructing the sign, is the only person listed, or his name is distinctly featured, it would not qualify as a directory and would not be in dignified form.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, under the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, 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 lawyer advertising is commercial speech protected by the First Amendment; the broad sign restrictions this opinion applied no longer reflect the law. Lawyer advertising in Texas is now governed by the Rule 7 series (Rules 7.01 through 7.06, as revised in 2021), with ABA analogs 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: Were free-standing, rooftop, awning, and stray window signs allowed under this opinion?

A: No. The Committee concluded all four violated DR 2-102(A)(3), which it read to permit only a sign on or near the office door.

Q: What did the Committee say "near the door" meant?

A: It said "near" means immediately adjacent to the door or as reasonably close to it as practicable, so a sign away from the door does not qualify.

Q: Could an attorney's name appear on a shared building sign?

A: Per the opinion, yes, if listed as part of a building directory with other tenants. But it would not qualify if the attorney helped construct the sign, was the only one listed, or his name was distinctly featured.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-102(A)(3) of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which limited permissible office signs to those on or near the office door or in the building directory, read against the advertising-ban policy of EC 2-9 and EC 2-10 and the predecessor Canon 24. The Committee treated the location of the sign relative to the door, and whether it functioned as identification rather than attraction, as the controlling factors. Because the opinion predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and the modern advertising rules, the closest current provisions are the Texas Rule 7 series and ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services); MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analogs
• DR 2-102(A)(3), EC 2-9, EC 2-10, Canon 24 (former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics)

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 38 (1951), Op. 44 (1952), Op. 357 (1971): prior rulings on lawyers' signs
• ABA Informal Decisions 510, 868, C800, and 1214: office and building signs
• Wise, Legal Ethics (2d ed. 1970) 150: a shingle should be of modest size

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 383: Office Signs or Placards Stating the Nature of Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 386: Telephone Directory Listings
• TX Ethics Op. 416: Paying to Be Listed in a Local Law Directory

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-385/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_385.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

DR 2-102 (A) (3)

Is it permissible for a lawyer to have (1) a free-standing sign not attached to a building; (2) a sign that extends above the roofline of the building; (3) a sign on an awning or canopy extending in front of the office; or (4) a sign in a lawyer's office window not on or near the door of the office? The signs displaying the location and address of the law office contain only the usual customary designation such as:
"LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DOE" or "DOE & DOE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW."

STATEMENT OF FACTS

OFFICE AND BUILDING SIGNS

It is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to have as an office sign that is (1) a free-standing sign not attached to a building; (2) a sign that extends above the roofline of the building; (3) a sign on an awning or canopy extending in front of the office; or (4) a sign in a lawyer's office window not on or near the door of the office.

Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (A) (3) reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"A lawyer or law firm shall not use . . . office signs . . . or similar professional notices or devices, except that the following may be used if they are in dignified form . . . (3) a sign on or near a door of the office and in the building directory identifying the law office." (Emphasis added.)

Ethical Consideration 2-9 reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"The traditional ban against advertising by lawyers, which is subject to certain limited exceptions, is rooted in the public interest. Competitive advertising would encourage extravagant, artful, self-laudatory brashness in seeking business and thus could mislead the layman."

Ethical Consideration 2-10 reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"Methods of advertising that is subject to the objections stated above (Ethical Consideration 2-9) should be and are prohibited . . . For example, a lawyer may be identified in the classified section of the telephone directory, in the office building directory . . . But at all times the permitted notices should be dignified and accurate."

Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (A) (3) is a successor to Canon 24, Canons of Professional Ethics, which read:

"A member should not solicit professional employment by circulars or advertisements . . . and all other like self-laudation should be avoided."

In the considered opinion of this committee, none of the signs inquired about can be ethically justified under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Disciplinary Rule requires that the sign be "on or near the door of the office" and any of the signs listed would be a per se violation of that ethical prohibition. A law office sign should be for the sole purpose of identifying the office for someone who is already looking for that particular lawyer, and should not be designated so as to attract the lay public.

The State Bar of Texas Committee on Professional Ethics has ruled on lawyers' signs on three previous occasions. Each opinion gives some guidance in this field. In Opinion 38 rendered by this Committee in May 1951 by a 6-4 vote, a neon sign approximately five feet long and two feet high containing the attorney's name, telephone number, over the entrance of his office in a suburban shopping center, was held proper. The value of that opinion as precedent was seriously weakened and probably overruled in Opinion 44 rendered in February 1952 in which two neon signs, on two sides of a corner downtown building occupied by a law firm, contained the name of the lawyers and letters approximately two feet high, the entire sign extending ten to twelve feet along the side of the building was held improper. By a 9-0 vote, the State Bar of Texas Committee on Professional Ethics held:

"This question has caused the committee a great deal of concern, especially in view of its Opinion 38, in which it was held that a smaller neon sign in a suburban shopping center was not in violation of the Canon of Ethics. That Opinion was rendered by previous committee and was not unanimous." (Emphasis added.)

"This committee is unanimous in its opinion that the sign described constitutes commercial advertising and is in violation of Canon 24. The committee recognized the difficulty in establishing or applying a rule for Canon regarding signs that would fit every situation and feels a decision will have to be made on each set of facts and circumstances presented. The committee feels that signs which serve merely to designate the attorney's office should be permissible and should be conservative under all the circumstances and should not, in any event, approach commercial advertising."

Opinion 357 rendered in March 1971 by this Committee held that the use of a neon sign approximately six feet by two feet with the firm name of attorneys thereon illuminated at night, some several feet from the entrance of the law offices would be in violation of the Canon of Ethics. In the opinion of this Committee, that ruling is direct authority for the prohibition of the above sign. Wise Legal Ethics (2d ed.) 150 (1970) reads:
"A shingle, or other designations on doors, windows, or elsewhere the firm name or the names of the attorneys practicing on 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."
None of the above signs could be characterized as "on the door." At best, it might be argued that such signs are "near" the door. In the opinion of the Committee, "near" as used in this Disciplinary rule, must mean immediately adjacent to the door or as reasonably close thereto, as practicable. A free-standing sign, a sign that extends above the roofline, a window sign away from the door or an awning, cannot fit within the Disciplinary Rule. Each of the above signs, are calculated to attract a lay person who has not previously selected an attorney. None of the above signs can be said to merely be assisting a person in finding the office of an attorney previouslyelected. In the opinion of this Committee, all of the above signs are certainly not "conservative" and "approach commercial advertising".

The foregoing ruling is in complete accord with the rulings of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional Ethics. In Informal Decision No. 510, the American Bar Association Committee held:
"Since the name of the law firm appears on the entrance to the building, the use of the words 'law office' and the names of the partners on the windows serve no useful purpose except that of advertising by informing the public that lawyers practice at this location and to give the names of the attorneys. This violates Canon 27. It is also lacking in the dignity necessary to uphold an honorable profession. This Committee also believes there is a similar violation in the case of lawyers who put their names on two or three windows, or even on one window, unless there were no street numbers or outside door available for the placing of the lawyer's name." (Emphasis added.)

In Informal Decision No. 868, the American Bar Association Committee held, in part:

"The lawyer in the make up of his sign will of course be bound by the ethics of the legal profession . . . if the sign is to attract attention, it is improper."

In Informal Decision No. C800, the American Bar Association Committee stated:

"We also believe the sign should be one in good taste and not a large gawdy sign designed to attract attention, but one which would merely be of information as to where the office is located. If the sign referred to in your letter is in the nature of a directory on the outside of the building or in the entrance of a lobby and other names are listed there with it, as is customary in a directory, and the sign is not intended for advertising purposes, and such signs are customary in the locality, then, in our opinion, it would appear to be proper."
It might be argued that in one set of circumstances or another, that any of the above characterized signs, might be "dignified" and "near" the door. However, all such signs must fall squarely within our ethical prohibitions. To allow any of the above signs would allow for additional publicity. The above signs could be brightly colored, could be lighted at night, and could be increased in size. Thus, unless a sign is on the door of an office, or is immediately adjacent thereto, or as close thereto as reasonably possible, the sign is prohibited.

The Committee is aware that in certain instances, attorneys' names are placed on signs, that are free-standing in nature, along with other tenants of the building, and several feet away from the office building. In the opinion of the Committee, a sign with an attorney's name thereon listed with other tenants of the building, would not be an ethical violation as that would constitute a directory of the building. See: Informal Decision No. 1214, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, February 9, 1972. However, if the attorney directly or indirectly aided in the construction of the sign, or is the only person so listed on the sign, or his name is distinctly listed on the sign, then such would not be a directory of the building and certainly would not be of dignified form.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 385 (1975)