Can a lawyer mail a client a magazine article, either with a fee statement or alone in a business envelope, that the lawyer thinks the client should see?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked two related questions: whether, when rendering a statement for services, a lawyer could enclose in the same envelope a mimeographed or magazine-furnished copy of an article the lawyer thinks should be brought to the client's attention (with nothing added, such as the lawyer's name and address); and whether the lawyer could instead mail the client such an article alone, without any letter or other enclosure, in the envelope the lawyer uses in the regular course of business.

The Committee was of the opinion that both arrangements would constitute an indirect form of solicitation in violation of Canon 24. The vote was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1953, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The solicitation restriction the opinion applies predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which held that categorical bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, so the Canon framework used here has since been substantially narrowed; solicitation is now addressed by ABA Model Rule 7.3. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer send the article if nothing identifying the lawyer was added to it?

A: No. Even with nothing added, the Committee treated enclosing the article with a fee statement as indirect solicitation barred by Canon 24 (9-0).

Q: Did mailing the article by itself, without a cover letter, avoid the problem?

A: No. The Committee reached the same result for the article mailed alone in the lawyer's regular business envelope; both options were indirect solicitation under Canon 24.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (solicitation), applied to a lawyer sending clients reading material. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (solicitation)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 73: Reply Card Soliciting Insurer Work
• TX Ethics Op. 72: Listing Practice Areas on a Card
• TX Ethics Op. 98: 'Personal Injury Lawyer' on a Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-70/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_70.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics, when rendering a statement for services, to enclose in the same envelope a mimeographed copy, or a printed copy furnished by the magazine, of an article which the lawyer thinks should be brought to his client's attention, provided nothing is added to the copy, such as the lawyers name and address?
Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for the lawyer to mail his client such an article, without a letter or other enclosure, in the envelope which the lawyer uses in his regular course of business?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 226 (1966)

SOLICITATION - INDIRECT
An attorney may not, when rendering a statement for services, enclose in the same envelope a copy of a magazine article which he thinks should be brought to his client's attention.

SOLICITATION - INDIRECT
An attorney may not mail a copy of a magazine article which he thinks should be brought to his client's attention, without a letter or other enclosure, in the envelope which he uses in his regular course of business.

Canon 24.

The committee is of the opinion that both 1. and 2. would constitute an indirect form of solicitation in violation of Canon 24. (9- 0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 70 (1953)