🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA March 26, 1975

Can a lawyer offer himself to a community group as a speaker on legal topics?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that it is improper for a lawyer, on his own initiative, to contact a lay organization and offer his services as a public speaker on legal topics, because the inevitable effect is to advertise his qualifications and solicit employment; participation is proper only where the lawyer did not initiate the request and the program is bona fide public education.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1975. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1975
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 Not binding precedent.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

The committee was asked whether a lawyer may contact an organization of lay people and inform them of his availability as a public speaker on legal topics. It started from EC 2-2, which encourages lawyers, acting under proper auspices, to participate in educational and public-relations programs about the legal system, but stresses that such programs should be motivated by a desire to benefit the public rather than to obtain publicity or employment, and that a lawyer who takes part should shun personal publicity.

Against that standard, the committee held that a lawyer's practice of communicating with lay organizations to advertise his availability as a speaker had long been condemned as improper solicitation for the opportunity to advertise his professional qualifications and obtain employment, citing N.Y. County 219 (1924) and N.Y. County 367 (1941). It quoted the reasoning that even if the lawyer's primary purpose were only to earn lecture income, the inevitable result would be to advertise his qualifications to prospective clients and create opportunities for professional employment. Even assuming a purely educational motive, the committee said, a self-initiated solicitation to lecture before lay groups would be undignified and would appear actuated by a desire to advertise and promote his employment, contrary to the duty in EC 9-6 to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

The committee identified the dividing line. Drawing on N.Y. State 283 (1973) and ABA Inf. 840 (1965), it said the most important yardstick is the nature and content of the program itself and whether it is a bona fide effort to educate the public; if that standard is met and the lawyer did not initiate the request, participation is not improper. DR 2-104(A)(4) does not save a self-initiated appearance, because that initiation is itself the improper solicitation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009, and before the lawyer-advertising landscape was reshaped by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and later decisions; lawyer advertising and solicitation are now governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.3. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer volunteer himself as a speaker to drum up business?

A: Under this opinion, no. A self-initiated offer to speak before a lay group was treated as improper solicitation, even if framed as public education.

Q: When may a lawyer speak to a lay group without an ethics problem?

A: Per the opinion, where the lawyer did not initiate the request and the program is a bona fide effort to educate the public, rather than a vehicle to publicize his practice.

Q: Does it matter if the lawyer only wants lecture fees, not clients?

A: The committee said no; even a purely income or education motive does not cure the problem, because the inevitable effect is to advertise his qualifications and invite employment.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied EC 2-2 and EC 2-5 (public-education activity), EC 9-6 (avoiding the appearance of impropriety), and the solicitation and advertising provisions DR 2-101(A), DR 2-104(A)(4), and DR 2-105(A). The current New York analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
  • MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
  • NY EC 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 9-6; DR 2-101(A), 2-104(A)(4), 2-105(A)

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. County 367 (1941): self-initiated offers to lecture to organizations are improper solicitation
  • N.Y. State 283 (1973); ABA Inf. 840 (1965): guidelines for permissible participation in public-education programs

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1975 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.