Can a Kentucky lawyer or law firm hold an open house to mark new offices or an occasion, and how must invitations be sent?

Plain-English summary

The committee traced how the ethics of a law-office open house had shifted. Under the older Canons of Ethics, the ABA had treated a general open house as prohibited indirect advertising (ABA I.O. 623 (1963), construing Canon 27), and had likewise condemned a Christmas party (I.O. 757) and a self-laudatory get-acquainted dinner (I.O. 940) as improper, while permitting more limited client gatherings (I.O. 796, I.O. 815).

The committee then explained that the legal landscape changed with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which opened the door to lawyer advertising, followed by a line of Supreme Court and Kentucky decisions. Kentucky amended SCR 3.130 effective January 1, 1978, to allow advertising consistent with Bates, and promulgated specific advertising rules in SCR 3.135. Citing Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, the committee distinguished prohibited in-person solicitation from protected advertising, where overreaching is unlikely and deception can be checked by sending a copy to the Bar Association.

Against that framework the committee answered the open-house question with a qualified yes. A lawyer or firm may hold an open house (for new or redecorated facilities, a historic Christmas walk, and the like) as long as the card, letter, or newspaper advertisement announcing it complies with SCR 3.135(3). The committee highlighted that rule's requirement that a written advertisement may be sent to an addressee only as one of a class of recipients, and only if it is not prompted by a specific event involving that addressee as distinct from the general public.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. Kentucky lawyer advertising is now governed by SCR 3.130 Rules 7.01 to 7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Kentucky law firm hold an open house for new offices under this opinion?

A: Yes, with a qualification. The committee concluded an open house is permissible as long as any invitation (card, letter, or newspaper ad) complies with the advertising rule SCR 3.135(3).

Q: What was the catch in how invitations could be sent?

A: The committee stressed SCR 3.135(3)'s limit: a written advertisement may go to an addressee only as one of a class of recipients, and not if it is prompted by a specific event involving that addressee as distinct from the general public.

Q: Why had open houses previously been treated as improper?

A: Under the older Canons, the ABA had viewed a general open house as prohibited indirect advertising (ABA I.O. 623, construing Canon 27). The committee explained that Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and the later advertising rules changed that footing.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Kentucky's advertising and solicitation rules as they stood after Bates: the former Code's DR 2-101 (advertising) and DR 2-103(A) (no recommending one's own employment to a non-lawyer who has not sought advice), together with SCR 3.135, the Court's specific advertising rule, including the mailing limits in SCR 3.135(3). The modern analogs are Model Rule 7.1 (communications about services), Model Rule 7.2 (advertising), and Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation). The committee's analysis turned on treating an open-house invitation as advertising governed by those mailing limits rather than prohibited in-person solicitation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-101(A), (B), (C) (advertising); modern analog Model Rule 7.1
• DR 2-103(A) (no recommending own employment to a non-lawyer who has not sought advice); modern analog Model Rule 7.3
• SCR 3.135, SCR 3.135(3) (Kentucky advertising rules; mailing limits); SCR 3.130, SCR 3.150

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 384 (1977), commercial-speech protection for lawyer advertising
• Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978), in-person solicitation for profit
• In Re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978); In Re R.M.J., 102 S.Ct. 929 (1982)
• Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, 568 S.W.2d 933 (1978), advertising versus in-person solicitation
• Kentucky Bar Association v. Gangwish, II, 630 S.W.2d 66 (1982)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA I.O. 623 (1963), 757 (1964), 940, 796 (1964), 815 (1964): prior ABA treatment of open houses and client gatherings under Canon 27.

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-263: Lawyer's Photo in Advertising
• KBA Ethics Op. E-285: Lighted Law Office Sign
• KBA Ethics Op. E-286: Scales of Justice on Card and Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-268.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-268
Issued: February 1983

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), especially Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May a lawyer or law firm hold an open house?

Answer:

Qualified yes.

References:

ABA 1.0. 623 (1963); ABA Construed Canon 27; ABA I.O. 757 (1964); ABA I.O. 940; ABA I.O. 796 (1964); ABA I.O. 815 (1964); DR 2-101(A), (B), (C); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 384 (1977); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978); In Re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978); In Re R.M.J., 102 S. Ct. 929 (1982); Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, 568 S.W.2d 933 (1978); Kentucky Bar Association v. Gangwish, II, 630 S.W.2d 66 (1982); S.C.R. 3.150; S.C.R. 3.135; DR 2-103(A); S.C.R. 3.135(3)

OPINION

In ABA I.O. 623 (1963), the ABA construed Canon 27, under the Canons of Ethics then in existence, to preclude a general "open house" to constitute indirect advertising and, therefore, prohibited. The request concerned the opening of a new office, or upon the redecoration and refurbishing of its old offices, to which lawyers, public officials and prominent business men would be invited.

In ABA I.O. 757 (1964), the ABA ruled a Christmas party was improper since it was advertising. Likewise, in ABA I.O. 940, a get-acquainted dinner for clients in which a short synopsis of each lawyer's background was found to be self-laudatory and, therefore, unethical.

Interestingly, the ABA in I.O. 796 (1964) allowed a law firm to have a room at a hotel where adjusters and insurance agents were meeting for their annual convention, as long as they did not invite adjusters and agents who were not clients of the attorneys. Likewise, in ABA I.O. 815 (1964), the committee allowed a law firm to entertain at home or elsewhere the claims representatives of the insurance companies the law firm represents.

With the adoption of the Code of Professional Responsibility in 1969 in Kentucky, the applicable advertising sections were mainly governed under DR 2-101(A), (B), and (C). In 1977 the Supreme Court of the United States decided Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 384 (1977) which opened the gates for lawyers to advertise under certain circumstances. Since 1977 numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of Kentucky have looked at advertising by lawyers. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978); In Re R.M. J., 102 S.Ct. 929 (1982); Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 933 (1978); and Kentucky Bar Association v. Gangwish, II, Ky., 630 S.W.2d 66 (1982).

The Supreme Court has promulgated rules on advertising. Effective January 1, 1978, the Court amended S.C.R. 3.130 to recognize that lawyers may advertise, as long as they comply with the Bates v. State Bar of Arizona case. Effective June 1, 1978, the Court promulgated exact rules for lawyers to advertise in SCR 3.135. SCR 3.135 has been amended and now includes an Attorneys' Advertising Commission in order to aid the lawyers in this sometimes confusing area.

DR 2-103(A) provides:

A lawyer shall not recommend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate to a non-lawyer who has not sought his advice regarding employment of a lawyer.

In construing this section of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court of Kentucky differentiated the terms "in-person solicitation" versus advertising. The former being prohibited, while the latter being protected since there could be no overreaching by the lawyer and deception could be controlled by sending a copy to the Bar Association. Kentucky Bar Association v. Stuart, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 933 (1978).

There are many reasons that a lawyer or law firm may wish to have an open house (new facilities, newly decorated, historic Christmas walk, etc.). It is the opinion of the Ethics Committee that as long as the card, letter, newspaper advertisement, etc. complied with SCR 3.135(3) such open houses are permissible. Of particular importance, but not the only one, to lawyers who anticipate having an open house is the words:

A written advertisement may be sent or delivered to an individual addressee only if that addressee is one of a class of persons, other than a family, to whom it is also sent or delivered at or about the same time, and only if it is not prompted or precipitated by a specific event or occurrence involving or relating to the addressee or addressees as distinct from the general public. (Emphasis added.)

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.