May a lawyer write past will clients suggesting they bring their wills up to date with codicils or new wills?

Plain-English summary

A bar member asked whether it was proper to advise clients for whom he had previously prepared wills "to come in and bring their Wills up to date by making Codicils or new Wills."

The committee said it is not improper for an attorney who prepared a will, and who has no reason to believe the client does not still consider him his lawyer, to call the client's attention to changes in the law or facts that may require a change in or review of the will, and that suggesting a review where lapse of time makes changed circumstances probable would likewise not be improper. The committee drew a line on how the message is delivered: the attorney should not suggest a conference or that the client "come in," but should leave that to the client. The advice should be conveyed so that it is apparent the attorney is rendering a service and not soliciting business, and that the client is perfectly free to consult another attorney if he wishes. The committee cited Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 174 and Opinions Nos. 231, 554, and 850 of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1961, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The solicitation prohibitions underlying the opinion no longer reflect current law: the United States Supreme Court held in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), that categorical bans on truthful lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, and lawyer communications with clients are governed by different rules today. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer remind a former will client that the will may need updating?

A: Yes. The committee said it is not improper to call the client's attention to changes in the law or facts that may require a change in or review of the will, where the lawyer still reasonably considers the person his client.

Q: Could the lawyer ask the client to come in for a conference?

A: No. The committee said the attorney should not suggest a conference or that the client "come in," but should leave that to the client.

Q: How should the reminder be framed?

A: The committee said it should be conveyed so that it is apparent the attorney is rendering a service and not soliciting business, and that the client is free to consult another attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the solicitation principles of Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, to a lawyer's reminder to past will clients, distinguishing a permissible service to an existing client from impermissible solicitation. It relied on Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 174 and on New York City Bar Opinions Nos. 231, 554, and 850. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): the line between rendering a service to an existing client and soliciting business.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 174.
• Association of the Bar of the City of New York Opinions Nos. 231, 554, and 850.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 174: Tax leaflet mailed to clients as solicitation
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 89: Mailing form letters to solicit tax-refund work
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 206: Christmas cards bearing an "attorney" designation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-209/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted September 15, 1961

INQUIRY

A member of the Bar inquires concerning the propriety of advising clients for whom he had previously prepared Wills “to come in and bring their Wills up to date by making Codicils or new Wills.”

OPINION

It is not improper for an attorney who has prepared a will for a client and who has no reason to believe that the client does not still consider him “his lawyer” to call to the client’s attention changes in the law or facts which may require a change in or a review of the Will prepared by the attorney. Neither would it be improper to suggest a review of the Will where lapse of time is such that changed circumstances are probable. The attorney should, however, not suggest a conference or that the client “come in.” He should leave that to the client. The advice to the client should be so conveyed that it is apparent that the attorney is rendering a service and not soliciting business and that the client is perfectly free to consult another attorney should he so desire.

See Advisory Opinion No. 174 Oklahoma Decisions 341_343 et seq. and Opinions Nos. 231, 554, and 850 Association of the Bar of the City of New York.