Can a law firm mail a letter describing its practice areas to union members in a geographic area, and may it call those practice areas its specialties?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion E-84-13 asked whether a law firm may send a letter describing the firm's specialties, specific practice areas, and general information about the firm to union members in a specific geographic area. The committee began with the former Code's allowance for advertising the lawyer's availability except where the advertisement is false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair (SCR 20.08(7)(a)), citing In re R.M.J. and the First Amendment protection for truthful advertising of lawful activities.
The committee framed the issue as drawing the line between permissible advertising and impermissible solicitation. Citing Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (the dangers of in-person solicitation) and In re Primus, it concluded that general direct mailings do not present those dangers. It set out factors a lawyer should consider to stay on the advertising side of the line: mail advertising is permitted only when it is generalized and not tailored to the specific needs of individual recipients, so a lawyer may not target mail to potential clients with an identified need for legal services; mailings to people in particular geographic or demographic areas, or to groups whose characteristics suggest they may need legal services, are permissible; and a lawyer may not initiate follow-up communications after a mailing unless the recipient responds positively. Applying those points, the committee concluded the firm's letter could be mailed to union members in a specific area so long as it is not false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair, but the firm may not indicate its specialties unless they are in patent, trademark, or admiralty law (SCR 20.11; SCR 20.08(7) comment).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it analyzes conduct under the former Code. Lawyer advertising and solicitation are now analyzed under SCR 20:7.1 through 20:7.3 / Model Rules 7.1 to 7.3. Court decisions since 1984 have also reshaped permissible advertising and specialization claims. 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 firm mail practice-area information to union members in a geographic area?
A: The committee concluded yes, provided the mailing is general, not false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair, and is not targeted to recipients with an identified need for legal services.
Q: Can the firm call its practice areas specialties in the mailing?
A: No, unless the areas are patent, trademark, or admiralty law; the committee cited SCR 20.11 and the comment to SCR 20.08(7).
Q: Could the firm follow up with recipients who did not respond?
A: No. The committee stated a lawyer may not initiate follow-up communications after a mailing unless the recipient has responded positively.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted the former Code's advertising rule (SCR 20.08(7)) and its limit on claiming specialties (SCR 20.11), against the constitutional backdrop of R.M.J., Ohralik, and Primus. Lawyer advertising and solicitation are now addressed by SCR 20:7.1 to 20:7.3 / Model Rules 7.1 to 7.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Wis. SCR 20.08(7) / Model Rules 7.1, 7.2 (advertising) (former Code provision)
- Wis. SCR 20.11 / Model Rule 7.3, 7.4 (solicitation; specialization claims) (former Code provision)
Cases:
- In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), First Amendment protection for truthful lawyer advertising
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447 (1978), in-person solicitation
- In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978), solicitation
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marcus & Tepper, 107 Wis. 2d 560 (1982)
Other opinions cited:
- Wisconsin Formal Opinions E-83-2, E-82-1, E-83-16
- Michigan State Bar Opinion CI-573; Maryland State Bar Opinion 81-21
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-89-6: Advertising Through Welcome Wagon
- WI Ethics Op. E-94-3: Law Firm Open House
- WI Ethics Op. E-94-4: Seminars and Client Development
- WI Ethics Op. E-90-2: Advertising Public Office or Other License
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-84-13.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.