Can a law firm hire a public relations agency for a monthly fee to publicize its high-profile cases and offer its lawyers as media sources?

Plain-English summary

A firm proposed to hire a public relations agency for a fixed monthly fee to provide information to press, radio, and television about its high-profile cases and to offer firm members as news sources in particular areas of law. The stated purpose was publicity for the firm and its cases, with the implied purpose of attracting new clients. The Committee was asked whether that was permissible.

The Committee concluded that, in the limited context described, hiring the agency was not on its face inherently deceptive or misleading. It cautioned that the advertising rules still apply. DR 2-101(A) bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, and that prohibition reaches communications made on the lawyer's behalf by anyone the lawyer employs, including a public relations agency (see DR 1-102(A)(2)). The Committee noted the risk of misleading the public grows when dissemination is delegated to nonlawyers, and that under EC 3-6 the attorney must supervise and bears ultimate responsibility for the work product.

The Committee also applied DR 2-101(D), which bars giving compensation to press, radio, television, or other media representatives in anticipation of or in return for publicity in a news item; the agency or the lawyer's agent is equally barred from making such payments. That rule does not prohibit paying the cost of lawyer advertising, so a monthly fee to the agency is permissible as long as it is not based on client referral or case recovery. For those reasons, and in the narrow context described, the Committee answered the question in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, under the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The Disciplinary Rules have since been amended, including the comprehensive 2021 revisions adopted by Texas Supreme Court order, and Texas never adopted the ABA's Ethics 2000 framework. Subsequent rule changes 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a law firm hire a PR agency to get press coverage for its cases?

A: The Committee concluded yes in the narrow context described, because doing so is not inherently deceptive or misleading, subject to the advertising rules and the conditions below.

Q: Can the PR agency pay reporters or media outlets for coverage?

A: Per the opinion, no. DR 2-101(D) bars compensating media representatives in anticipation of or in return for news publicity, and the agency or the lawyer's agent is equally barred from making such payments.

Q: Is the firm responsible for what the PR agency says?

A: The Committee said yes. The advertising rules reach communications made on the lawyer's behalf, and under EC 3-6 the attorney must supervise the agency and bears ultimate responsibility for the communications.

Q: Is a monthly fee to the PR agency allowed?

A: The Committee concluded a flat monthly fee is permissible so long as it is not based on client referral or case recovery, because DR 2-101(D) does not prohibit paying the cost of lawyer advertising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-101(A) (no false or misleading communication about a lawyer's services; analogous to ABA Model Rule 7.1), reaches communications made through nonlawyer agents via DR 1-102(A)(2) and EC 3-6 (supervision and responsibility for delegated work; analogous to ABA Model Rule 5.3), and applies DR 2-101(D) (no paying media for news publicity, but lawyer-advertising costs are not barred). The analysis turns on the lawyer's continuing responsibility for delegated communications and the line between paying for advertising and paying for news coverage.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance)
• DR 2-101(A), Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (no false or misleading communication)
• DR 2-101(D), Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (no paying media for news publicity)
• DR 1-102(A)(2), Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (acting through another)
• EC 3-6, Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (delegation to and supervision of lay persons)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 462: Lawyer-Provided Magazines in a Business Waiting Room
• TX Ethics Op. 683: Media Statements About a Case Pending on Appeal
• TX Ethics Op. 507: Targeted Newspaper Ad and Reciprocal Referral Letter to a Layperson

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-460/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_460.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May an attorney or law firm employ a public relations agency for a pre-determined monthly fee to provide information to press, radio, and television representatives about high-profile cases and the availability of law firm members as news sources on specific areas of law, with the purposes of the attorney or law firm being to create publicity for the law firm and the cases it is handling and the implied purpose being the obtaining of new clients?

OPINION

Hiring a public relations agency, in the limited context described in the question presented, is not on its face, inherently deceptive or misleading.

DR 2-101(A) provides that "(a) lawyer shall not make, on behalf of himself, his partner, associate, or any other lawyer, any false or misleading communication, about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." This prohibition applies not only to the acts of the lawyer personally, but also to the acts of the lawyer through anyone employed by the lawyer to communicate with the public on his behalf insofar as the disciplinary rules, including those specifically dealing with publicity and advertising, will govern any communications, whether made by the lawyer himself or by someone else at his request. See DR 1- 102(A)(2). Obviously the possibility for misleading the public is increased when the dissemination of information is delegated to non-lawyers. EC 3-6 provides for the delegation of certain tasks to lay persons, if the attorney supervises and has complete professional responsibility for the work product. The attorney must bear the ultimate responsibility for the communications made on his behalf by the public relations agency.

DR 2-101(D) prohibits the giving of compensation to representatives of the press, radio, television or other communication media in anticipation of or in return for publicity in a news item. The agent of the lawyer or the agency, therefore, also is prohibited from giving compensation to the press, radio, television or other communication media.

DR 2-101(D) does not prohibit the payment of the cost of lawyer advertising. A monthly fee to the public relations agency would not be prohibited as long as the fee is not based on client referral or case recovery.

For the reasons stated above, and in the narrow context described, the question presented is answered in the affirmative.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 460 (1988)