🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
NJACPE December 28, 1967

May a lawyer write an unpaid by-line newspaper column discussing the law without violating the ban on giving legal information through publications?

Short answer: Yes. The opinion concluded the lawyer could write an unpaid by-line column discussing the National Labor Relations Act and NLRB decisions, because Canon 40 permits lawyers to write articles giving information on the law so long as they do not answer readers' individual legal questions. (Later overruled by Opinion 477.)

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1967. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1967
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer was asked to write a by-line column for a monthly newspaper, The Labor Herald, discussing the National Labor Relations Act and NLRB decisions, distributed in New Jersey and parts of New York, with no remuneration. The Committee analyzed the inquiry under Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which provides that a lawyer may with propriety write articles for publications giving information upon the law, but should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquirers about their individual rights.

The Committee drew on the ABA Committee's annotations to Canon 40: Formal Opinion 92 (1933) (a lawyer may sell articles of a general nature on legal subjects to periodicals of general circulation); Formal Opinion 162 (1936) (a lawyer may write articles on legal subjects for a trade magazine but may not offer to answer readers' submitted questions); and the guidance that a lawyer may write articles explaining holdings and dissents in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, with his name given but no picture and no office address.

In light of those opinions, the Committee concluded the inquirer could ethically proceed as outlined.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in December 1967, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It was later overruled by the Committee's Opinion 477 (1980) on the by-line question. The subject of lawyer communications and publicity is now governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2, a framework reshaped by the post-1977 line of commercial-speech decisions following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer write a recurring column on the law for a newspaper?

A: Under this opinion, yes; the Committee held Canon 40 permits a lawyer to write articles giving information on the law, here an unpaid column on the NLRA and NLRB decisions. Opinion 477 later took a different view.

Q: What was the line the Committee drew?

A: Writing general articles on the law was permitted, but accepting employment to answer readers' individual legal questions was not, and the lawyer's name could appear without a picture or office address.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 40 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and its ABA annotations, distinguishing permissible general legal writing from impermissible answering of readers' individual questions. The modern framework for lawyer publicity is RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2, substantially liberalized after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977); note that the specific by-line holding here was overruled by Opinion 477.

Citations and references

Other authorities:

  • Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 40
  • ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 92 (1933) and Formal Opinion 162 (1936)

Other opinions cited:

  • NJ ACPE Opinion 477 (1980): later overruled this opinion's by-line approach

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

Original opinion text

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

90 N.J.L.J. 849
December 28, 1967

OPINION 122

Newspaper Articles

The following inquiry has been submitted:

I have been requested to write a by-line column for a monthly newspaper entitled The Labor Herald. This column will consist of discussions of the National Labor Relations Act, and the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. The Labor Herald is distributed in New Jersey and parts of New York. ... There will be no remuneration paid for this column... .

This inquiry is governed by Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 40:

Newspapers.

A lawyer may with propriety write articles for publications in which he gives information upon the law; but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquiries in respect to their individual rights.

Canon 40 has been interpreted by the American Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics (quotations from A.B.A. Committee's annotations on the canon), in Formal Opinion 92 (1933):

An attorney may sell articles of a general nature on legal subjects to periodicals of general circulation.

Formal Opinion 162 (1936):

While an attorney may write articles on legal subjects for a trade magazine, he may not offer to answer readers' questions which are submitted to him.

A lawyer may write articles for publication in lay papers explaining holdings and any dissenting opinions in decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The attorney's name may be given but no picture should be used and his office address should not be given.

In the light of these opinions, it is the opinion of this Committee that the inquirer may ethically proceed as outlined in the inquiry.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1967 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.