Can a lawyer sponsor a sports team and have the sponsorship, including the lawyer's name and firm, publicized in connection with the team?

Plain-English summary

An attorney proposed to financially sponsor an adult softball team and asked whether the sponsorship could be publicized in connection with publications of the team's league standings. The committee treated publishing the attorney's name with the team standings as a form of attorney advertising.

The committee traced the history of the question. Its Opinion 125, decided before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, had restricted such publicity to the individual attorney's name, barring any mention of the profession or firm name, and so essentially prohibited advertising tied to team sponsorship. After Bates, Opinion 612 recognized that advertising is no longer per se unprofessional, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and Illinois adopted its 1980 Code. Under that Code, former Rule 2-101(a) allowed a lawyer to publicize himself through commercial publicity meeting the Rule's conditions, including use of the firm name where at least one responsible lawyer is identified, and Rule 2-101(c) required communications to be "dignified," which the proposed publicity did not appear to violate.

The committee noted in passing that Matter of R.M.J. and Zauderer might, in other cases, override any dignity concern, since the Supreme Court held that non-misleading commercial speech, including attorney advertising, is protected and may be restricted only as necessary to a substantial state interest; it left open whether dignity is such an interest. The committee concluded the attorney may publicize the sponsorship as proposed, and modified Opinion 125 to the extent inconsistent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in October 1985, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rule (Rule 7.2), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Lawyer-advertising law has continued to develop since 1985. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer sponsor a sports team and publicize it?

A: The opinion concluded yes; the committee treated team-sponsorship publicity, including the firm name, as a permitted form of lawyer advertising under the then-current Code.

Q: Why did this change an earlier ISBA position?

A: Per the opinion, the older Opinion 125 predated Bates v. State Bar of Arizona; after Bates recognized that advertising is not per se unprofessional, the committee modified Opinion 125 to the extent inconsistent.

Q: Did the committee resolve whether "dignified" advertising can be required?

A: No. It noted that Matter of R.M.J. and Zauderer might override a dignity requirement and expressly left open whether dignity in attorney advertising is a substantial state interest.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 2-101(a) and (c) (lawyer publicity and the "dignified" requirement) and Rule 2-105(a)(3), under Canon 2, against the backdrop of Bates and its successors. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.2 on advertising.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code Rule 2-101(a), (c) and Rule 2-105(a)(3), Canon 2 (lawyer advertising, applied in the opinion)
• Illinois RPC 7.2 (2010 equivalent per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 7.2 (advertising)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), attorney advertising not per se unprofessional
• Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), protection of non-misleading attorney advertising
• Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), commercial speech protection for attorney advertising

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinions 125 and 612: attorney sponsorship and advertising before and after Bates

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 85-02: Misrepresenting Partnership Status
• ISBA Ethics Op. 03-05: Non-Legal Credentials on Cards
• ISBA Ethics Op. 03-02: Firm Names and Of Counsel

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/8501