May a lawyer write a regular newspaper legal column and answer readers' general questions?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether he and his partner could ethically write weekly articles for a weekly newspaper under the title "Law Briefs" and answer general questions submitted by subscribers, dealing only with general questions and in no way attempting to specifically advise the inquirer.

The committee walked through Canon 40, which allowed a lawyer to write articles giving information upon the law but not to accept employment from such publications to advise inquirers about their individual rights. It quoted ABA Opinions 92, 162, and 270 (the last holding a lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through a newspaper column) and Drinker on Legal Ethics. The committee noted the recurring concerns: improper advertisement of the lawyer, giving legal advice without the personal contact a reliable lawyer-client relationship requires, and enabling a lay publisher to give legal advice amounting to unauthorized practice. It observed that a regular newspaper column on legal matters would be difficult to keep within Canon 40 over time, because readers want something practical to apply to their own situations. The committee concluded that, within the limits expressed, the articles were not improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 27, 35, 40, and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the underlying duties are now addressed by Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-7.11 (advertising scope), and 4-5.5 (unauthorized practice) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 7.1, and 5.5). Subsequent rule amendments and the line of decisions following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which reshaped restrictions on lawyer speech, may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer write a regular legal column for a newspaper?

A: Yes, within the limits the committee set. It found writing articles and answering general questions not improper so long as the column stayed general and did not attempt to advise readers on their individual rights.

Q: What turned a permissible column into an improper one?

A: Answering inquiries for advice about individual rights. The committee, quoting ABA Opinion 270, noted that a lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through a newspaper column.

Q: Did it matter whether the lawyer was paid?

A: The committee quoted Drinker that whether or not the lawyer is paid for the articles is not decisive; the concern was the nature of the content, not the payment.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 27, 35, 40, and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, centering on Canon 40's distinction between writing general legal information and accepting employment to advise inquirers about their individual rights. Those concerns are now addressed by Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 7.1, and 5.5). The committee relied on ABA Opinions 92, 162, and 270 and on Drinker, Legal Ethics, at page 263.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons 27, 35, 40, 47 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, 4-5.5]

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 92, 162, 270

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 263

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 64-79: Newspaper Legal Column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-62-14/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-62-14-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 62-14
July 18, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for a lawyer to write articles for a weekly newspaper and answer general questions submitted by subscribers without in any way attempting to specifically advise them.
Canons: 27, 35, 40, 47 [See current 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-7.11, 4-5.5]
Opinions: ABA 92, 162, 270
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar requests an opinion of the Committee as to whether he and his partner may ethically write weekly articles for a weekly newspaper under the title of "Law Briefs" and answer general questions submitted by various subscribers in which they will deal only with general questions and in no way attempt to specifically advise the client.
Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states:
A lawyer may with propriety write articles for publication in which he gives information upon the law; but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquirers in respect to their individual rights.
ABA Opinion 92 states:
Writing and selling for publication articles of a general nature on legal subjects, is not per se improper.
ABA Opinion 162 holds that:
It is not unethical for an attorney to write articles on legal subjects for magazines or newspapers, and the fact that publication is in a trade journal makes no difference.
It is unethical for an attorney to allow his name to be carried in a magazine or other publication, representing that he is attorney for a named organization and will furnish free legal advice to its members.
ABA Opinion 270 holds:
A lawyer may not answer, even anonymously, inquiries for advice as to individual rights through the medium of a newspaper column.
Drinker on Legal Ethics, on page 263 says:
"A lawyer may with propriety write articles for publication in which he gives information upon the law; but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquirers in respect to their individual rights."
. . .
The application of Canon 40 to borderline cases always involves the question of good faith on the part of the lawyer and of the publisher or sponsor of the article or address.
The transgression of ethical principles primarily to be guarded against are:
(1) The improper advertisement of the lawyer. . .
(2) The giving by him of legal advice to persons with whom he has not the personal contact and background required between the lawyer and client to make his advice reliable. . .
(3) Enabling the lay publisher, sponsor, or broadcaster to give legal advice, constituting the unauthorized practice of law. . .
Whether or not the lawyer is paid for articles is not decisive.
. . .
It is believed that Canon 40 was designed primarily to sanction articles in law magazines or occasional articles in other publications and that it would be difficult if not impossible to conceive of a daily, weekly or monthly column in a newspaper or magazine devoted to the discussion of legal matters which would not, sooner or later, violate Canon 40 and also Canons 27, 35, and 47. What the readers of such columns want is not a general discussion such as they can find in a law book or in an article in a law magazine, but something practical which they can apply to their own personal experience. Laymen usually are unable to formulate questions clearly to such a column and a lawyer answering such is apt to follow what he thinks his readers want to hear about and to answer the personal problem which he sees behind their questions. This is what the publishers will ultimately see that they get.
The answer to the question appears clear. Within the limits expressed, the articles are not improper.