Can a Texas lawyer mail a personalized letter or firm brochure to an accident victim offering legal services?

Plain-English summary

A Texas lawyer learned from a local newspaper that a woman had been injured in a motor-vehicle collision in which the other driver appeared at fault, giving her a viable claim. The lawyer proposed to mail her a letter (and brochure) containing his background and areas of practice, the State Bar disclaimer that he is not board certified in personal injury, a statement that she might be entitled to damages, a general explanation of negligence law and recoverable damages, and a note about possible uninsured/underinsured coverage. The lawyer had no reason to think she could not exercise reasonable judgment, and the materials contained no coercion or harassment. The questions covered whether such a letter and brochure are permitted, whether the disclaimer is required, whether the letter may be personalized to the incident's facts and law, and whether background information may be included.

The Committee explained that, after Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), targeted direct-mail solicitation is constitutionally protected commercial speech, and the Texas rules effective January 1, 1990 do not prohibit truthful, non-deceptive letters to potential clients known to face particular legal problems. The State retains authority to regulate such communications to prevent deception, and Rule 7.01 supplies those requirements, barring false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services.

The Committee added several specific requirements. Reciting facts and drawing legal conclusions before any contact increases the risk of abuse, so Rule 7.01(h) requires retaining a copy of the communication for four years, and (consistent with In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982)) the lawyer may be required to prove the truth of stated facts. Rule 7.01(f) extends the paragraph (c) and (d) requirements to all written communications seeking employment, so the letter must conspicuously include the name of the responsible lawyer and the required Board-Certification disclaimers. A complying brochure or non-personalized form letter remains an acceptable advertisement, and background information (employment, associations, job history, areas of concentration) may be included if truthful, not likely to mislead, and not implying improper influence over a tribunal or official.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that took effect January 1, 1990. Texas did not adopt the ABA's Ethics 2000 revisions; its rules have been amended only piecemeal since, including the comprehensive 2021 revisions adopted by Texas Supreme Court order. 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: Can a lawyer mail a solicitation letter to an accident victim identified from a news report?

A: The Committee concluded yes, where the communication is truthful and non-deceptive and complies with Rule 7.01. It relied on Shapero, which brought targeted direct mail within protected commercial speech.

Q: Does the letter have to include the board-certification disclaimer?

A: Yes. Per the opinion, Rule 7.01(f) requires all written communications seeking employment to include, conspicuously, the responsible lawyer's name and the State Bar Board-Certification disclaimers.

Q: Can the letter describe the recipient's accident and the applicable law?

A: The Committee concluded a letter may be personalized to the incident and the law, but reciting facts raises the risk of abuse; the lawyer must keep a copy for four years (Rule 7.01(h)) and may be required to prove the truth and source of the facts stated.

Q: May the lawyer include personal background in the letter or brochure?

A: Yes, if it is truthful and not likely to mislead, and does not imply the lawyer can improperly influence a tribunal, legislative body, or public official.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.01 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; analogous to ABA Model Rule 7.1), including Rule 7.01(a), (f), and (h), in the context of constitutional limits on regulating lawyer solicitation under ABA Model Rule 7.3 and the Supreme Court's commercial-speech decisions. The analysis applies Shapero and In re R.M.J. to permit truthful targeted direct mail subject to the rule's anti-deception and disclosure requirements.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
• Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.01, including 7.01(a), 7.01(f), and 7.01(h)

Cases:

• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), targeted direct-mail solicitation is protected commercial speech
• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), the State may restrict false, deceptive, or misleading advertising

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Ethics Ops. 414, 418, and 420 (1984): advertising and brochure content under the prior rules

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 521: Soliciting a Prospective Client by Letter and Videotape
• ABA Formal Op. 501: Solicitation Under Model Rule 7.3

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-470/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_470.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

The following questions are presented:
Is it a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to mail a letter to an injured party advising of the availability of the lawyer's services?
Is it a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to mail his law firm brochure to an injured accident victim including information as to his firm services?
When a lawyer mails such a letter and/or a brochure to an accident victim, should he include a legible disclaimer "Not certified as a specialist by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization" if he is not a board certified personal injury specialist?
If a lawyer mails a letter as described in paragraph 1, to a potential client (the injured party), may he personalize his letter to the facts of the incident including a description of the facts of the accident and the lawyer's opinion that a third party might be liable for damages and may such description include a statement as to the substantive law pertaining to similar fact situations?
May a lawyer include background information about himself, such as past employment, membership in non-legal professional associations and job history?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A Texas lawyer receives information about an individual injured in a motor vehicle collision. The woman who was injured was transported to the hospital and was treated for her injuries. It is clear, from the information received by the attorney, that the other driver involved in the collision was at fault and it is apparent that the injured individual has a viable cause of action against the other driver for her resulting injuries.

The lawyer reads about the injured individual's collision in a local newspaper. The lawyer does not know and has no reasonable basis to think that the prospective client, the injured individual, could not exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer. The lawyer proposes to send the injured party a letter that does not contain any statements that would constitute coercion, duress, or harassment. The prospective client, the injured individual, does not appear to be a minor, a person incapacitated or a person unable to exercise reasonable judgment. The lawyer sends a letter to the injured party's home address that contains the following information: 1. The lawyer's background, degrees and positions held, and areas of practice; 2. A State Bar of Texas disclaimer that the lawyer is not board certified in personal injury law; 3. A statement that the injured individual may be entitled to damages, based on the facts of the case as the lawyer understands them; 4. A general statement of the law of negligence as it relates to this particular incident; 5. A general explanation as to the types of damages that victims of personal injuries in Texas may recover (e.g. loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement, medical expenses, etc.) and a general explanation of exemplary/punitive damages; 6. A general statement that if the other driver was uninsured or underinsured and the injured party had certain insurance coverage (uninsured or underinsured coverage) it is possible that the party might be entitled to make a claim against her own insurance carrier for her damages; 7. The lawyer encloses a brochure which contains information regarding the lawyer's background, employment experience, membership in associations and professional organizations and a State Bar of Texas disclaimer.

For the sake of this discussion, it is assumed that the lawyer's letter does not contain any statements that are false and misleading, as defined by Rule 7.01(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCUSSION

The United States Supreme Court decision in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466, 108 S.Ct. 1916, 100 L.Ed.2d 475 (1988) brings targeted direct mail solicitation by lawyers within the area of constitutionally protected commercial speech. Consistent with this decision the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 1, 1990, do not prohibit the sending of truthful and non-deceptive letters to potential clients known to face particular legal problems. Although extending First and Fourteenth Amendment protection to this type of lawyer solicitation, the Supreme Court admits that "a letter that is personalized (not merely targeted) to the recipient presents an increased risk of deception, intentional or inadvertent." 486 U.S. at 476. While the State may not ban such communications, it does retain the authority to regulate them in furtherance of its substantial interest in preventing deception of the public. Rule 7.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct contains those requirements which are intended to prevent false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. It provides in part that: (a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the qualifications or the services of any lawyer or law firm. A statement is false or misleading if it: (1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. . . .

The practice of reciting particular facts, applying the law to those facts and drawing legal conclusions prior to any direct contact with the potential client presents an increased opportunity for mistakes and abuses. To guard against confusion that might arise at a later date over the exact content of such a written communication and to determine whether or not such a mistake or abuse has occurred, Rule 7.01(h) requires that the lawyer retain a copy of such a communication for four years. Consistent with the State's retained authority to restrict "[f]alse, deceptive, or misleading advertising" In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 200, 102 S.Ct. 929, 936, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982), the lawyer could be required to prove the truth of the facts stated therein or explain how the fact was discovered and verified. 486 U.S. at 477.

It should be noted that paragraph (f) of Rule 7.01 extends the requirements of paragraph (c) and (d) to all written communications to a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment. This means that all such letters shall include the name of the lawyer who will be responsible for the performance of the legal service and the required State Bar of Texas disclaimers with regard to Board Certification. These statements must be displayed conspicuously.

A printed brochure or non-personalized form letter which complies with Rule 7.01 would continue to be an acceptable means of advertisement (see Ethics Opinions No. 414, February 1984 and April 1984; and 420, December 1984). As long as the communication is in compliance with the requirements of Rule 7.01, it may include the lawyer's background, schooling, degrees and positions held, providing that such background information does not imply that the lawyer is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body or public official (see Ethics Opinion 418, October 1984). The lawyer may also list the particular areas of concentration within his practice provided, again, that the requirements of 7.01(b) and (c) are met, and provided all such background information is truthful and not likely to mislead or deceive.

It is permissible under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to mail a letter or firm brochure to a potential client known to be in need of particular legal services. Whether a lawyer mails a letter or a brochure, both must comply with all the requirements of Rule 7.01 regarding communications concerning a lawyer's services. If the lawyer mails a solicitation letter to a potential client which includes facts of an incident, the lawyer may be required to prove the source and accuracy of such facts. Background information about the lawyer such as past employment, membership in non-legal professional associations and job history may be included if it is truthful and not likely to mislead or deceive a potential client.

CONCLUSION

It is permissible under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to mail a letter or firm brochure to a potential client known to be in need of particular legal services. Whether a lawyer mails a letter or a brochure, both must comply with all the requirements of Rule 7.01 regarding communications concerning a lawyer's services. If the lawyer mails a solicitation letter to a potential client which includes facts of an incident, the lawyer may be required to prove the source and accuracy of such facts. Background information about the lawyer such as past employment, membership in non-legal professional associations and job history may be included if it is truthful and not likely to mislead or deceive a potential client.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 470 (1991)