Can a lawyer mail an insurance company a reply card offering, at set fees, to prepare its annual statements, tax returns, and corporate filings?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer could send a life insurance company a double post-card soliciting business in the preparation of annual statements and income tax returns at stated fees of $50.00 and $15.00, with the reply card providing boxes to check the work desired and an option to "Prepare other work as follows Organize New Company, Change Name, Change Premium Plan Revise Policy, etc."

The Committee held that the card was a flagrant violation of Canon 24, which prohibits solicitation, direct or indirect. It added that if the use of the card were justified on the basis that the sender was an "Insurance Consultant," that would violate Canon 42, because the alleged specialized service was not limited to members of the legal profession as that Canon required. 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; direct solicitation is now addressed by ABA Model Rule 7.3 and the communication of fields of practice by Model Rule 7.4. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Why did the Committee treat the reply card as improper solicitation?

A: It found the card a flagrant violation of Canon 24, which bars solicitation that is direct or indirect; mailing prospective clients a fee-marked order card fell within that prohibition (9-0).

Q: Did calling the work "insurance consulting" change the result?

A: No. The Committee said that justifying the card as the work of an "Insurance Consultant" would violate Canon 42, because the service was not limited to members of the legal profession as that Canon required.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (solicitation) and 42 (notice of specialized legal service), applied to a fee-marked reply card mailed to a prospective corporate client. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analog
• MR 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (solicitation)
• Texas Canon 42 (notice of specialized legal service)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 77: 'Tax Practice Exclusive' on Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 98: 'Personal Injury Lawyer' on a Card
• TX Ethics Op. 112: Announcing a Practice 'Specialty'

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-73/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_73.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 for an attorney to send a double post card to a life insurance company soliciting business in the preparation of annual statements and income tax returns for insurance companies at stated fees of $50.00 and $15.00, respectively?

The reply card provided places to check the work desired as to annual statements and income tax returns, and also stated:

"Prepare other work as follows Organize New CompanyΧChange NameΧChange Premium PlanΧ Revise Policy, etc."

18 Baylor L. Rev. 227 (1966)

SOLICITATION - NOTICE OF SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICE - REPLY CARDS
An attorney may not send a reply card to a life insurance company, providing places to check the work desired as to annual statements and income tax returns and to "Organize New Company, Change Name, Change Premium Plan Revise Policy, etc."

Canons 24, 42.

It is the opinion of this committee that the use of the card above described constitutes a flagrant violation of Canon 24, which prohibits solicitation, direct or indirect.

The committee is further of the opinion that if the use of this card should be attempted to be justified on the basis that the sender is an "Insurance Consultant," it is a violation of Canon 42, since the alleged specialized service is not limited to members of the legal profession as required by that Canon. (9- 0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 73 (1953)