May a tax lawyer mail his regular clients letters or cards setting appointment dates to gather information for their income-tax returns?

Plain-English summary

An attorney specializing in tax practice and in preparing income-tax returns for his regular clients asked whether he may advise those clients in advance, by letter and by card, of the definite dates on which he wishes them to appear to give him the information needed to prepare their returns.

The Committee concluded there is no impropriety in the proposed program so long as the attorney confines the requests and notices to those by whom he is already regularly and customarily employed. He should strictly observe the rule against any type, form, or manner of solicitation of business, and the limitation that such communications not go to anyone who is not an established client. The Committee added that, because of the nature of the subject matter, the communication should be directed in a sealed letter rather than by an open card.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The solicitation and client-communication restraints applied here predate Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and later commercial-speech decisions, and the modern rules on advertising and solicitation treat communications to existing clients far more permissively. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer send the appointment notices at all?

A: Yes, to clients he already regularly and customarily employed. The Committee found no impropriety in notifying established clients of dates to appear with their tax information.

Q: Who could not receive the notices?

A: Anyone who was not an established client. The Committee said the communications must not go to any person who is not a regularly established client, and the rule against solicitation must be strictly observed.

Q: Did the form of the mailing matter?

A: Yes. Because of the nature of the subject matter, the Committee said the communication should be sent in a sealed letter rather than on an open card.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canon-era rule against solicitation of business, distinguishing permissible communications to a lawyer's established clients from prohibited solicitation of new business, and noting that the confidential nature of tax information called for a sealed letter rather than an open card. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

The opinion cited no rules, statutes, cases, or prior opinions.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 132: Postal cards advertising brief-writing to other lawyers
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 133: Revised professional card in a city directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 125: Mailing a petition copy to a defendant before service

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-148/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 14, 1950

QUERY

Is it proper for an attorney specializing in tax practice and in the making and preparing of income tax returns for his regular clients to advise those clients in advance by letter and by card of the definite dates upon which he wishes them to appear for the purpose of giving him the necessary information to prepare their income tax returns?

ANSWER

It is the opinion of the Committee that there is no impropriety in the program proposed as long as the attorney confines the sending of his proposed requests and notices to those by whom he is already regularly and customarily employed. He should, of course, observe strictly the rule against any type, form or manner of solicitation of business, and he should observe strictly the limitation to the effect that such communications should not go to any one or more persons not the regularly established clients of the attorney. In addition, the nature of the subject-matter is such that the communication should be directed in a sealed letter rather than by an open card.