May a person qualified as both lawyer and doctor hold out in both professions, are all firm members responsible for one member's misconduct, and may a building be named 'Medical-Legal Building'?

Plain-English summary

A county bar grievance committee chairman asked three questions: whether someone qualified as both lawyer and doctor may hold himself out in both professions; whether all members of a law firm are guilty of impropriety when one member acts unethically; and whether it is unethical for one firm of lawyers and two doctors to occupy and advertise a "Medical-Legal Building." The committee's syllabus held that carrying on dual professions is improper where they are inconsistent with the lawyer's duty to his client and the Bar, that the lawyer-doctor must choose which profession to hold out in even from separate locations, and that dual practice is improper where there is a possibility of conflict of interest or breach of client confidence.

On the first question, the committee reasoned that once a person becomes a lawyer he takes on a mantle he cannot put on and off at will, and that the practice of medicine by a lawyer, from the same or different locations, is by its nature so fraught with conflict of interest, violation of client confidences, and use as a cloak for indirect solicitation that it would be practically impossible to adhere to the Canons. It illustrated the point: a doctor-lawyer who treats a patient becomes the patient's confidant and, if retained on the patient's legal matters, could not ethically testify as a medical witness, and a doctor in a confidential relationship is positioned to direct the patient's legal affairs even where interests conflict. It quoted Canons 6, 35, 37, and 47 in support and called the dual capacity totally incompatible and reprehensible.

On the second question, the committee said a partnership is a separate legal entity and the partners' relations are so close that the firm and each member are responsible for knowingly permitting or condoning a member's unethical act. It qualified this with "knowingly," recognizing that one member could be guilty without the others' knowledge, but held that a member who knows of a partner's or associate's unethical conduct and lets it continue, passively or otherwise, is equally guilty. On the third question, it held that naming a building occupied by only one law firm a "Law Building," "Legal Building," or any name advertising the lawyers' profession is improper, so using "Medical-Legal Building" would be advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1966, 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 advertising restrictions underlying part of this 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 lawyers' second occupations and firm signage are governed by separate 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 person licensed as both lawyer and doctor practice both?

A: Not while holding out in both. The committee said he must choose between holding himself out as a lawyer or as a doctor, because dual practice was too fraught with conflicts of interest, confidentiality dangers, and indirect solicitation to comply with the Canons.

Q: Why did the committee see a confidentiality problem?

A: It reasoned a doctor-lawyer who treats a patient becomes the patient's confidant and, if also handling the patient's legal matters, could not ethically testify as a medical witness, and could be positioned to direct the patient's legal affairs despite conflicting interests.

Q: Are all firm members responsible for one member's misconduct?

A: Only where they knew. The committee said a member who knows of a partner's or associate's unethical conduct and lets it continue is equally guilty, but one member could be guilty without the others' knowledge.

Q: Could the building be named "Medical-Legal Building"?

A: No. The committee held that naming a building occupied by one law firm in a way that advertises the lawyers' profession violates Canon 27, so "Medical-Legal Building" would be improper advertising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 6 (conflicting interests and client confidences), Canon 27 (advertising and solicitation), Canon 35 (lay intermediaries), Canon 37 (preserving client confidences), and Canon 47 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law), all adopted in Oklahoma, to a lawyer-physician's dual practice, firm responsibility for a member's misconduct, and building naming. It cited several Oklahoma and ABA opinions. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 (adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): undivided fidelity to the client and the bar on representing conflicting interests.
• Canon 27 (adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): bars advertising and solicitation.
• Canon 35 (adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): a lawyer's services should not be controlled by a lay intermediary.
• Canon 37 (adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): the duty to preserve client confidences.
• Canon 47 (adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): a lawyer may not aid the unauthorized practice of law.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Bar Association Advisory Opinions Nos. 185 and 208.
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Advisory Opinions Nos. 33, 272, and 297, and numerous informal opinions.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 232: A lawyer's interest in an abstract company
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 236: Signs and lettering on office doors and windows
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 229: Bondsman referral fees and bond schemes

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-238/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted March 17, 1966

This Committee has been asked by the Chairman of a Grievance Committee of a County Bar Association the following questions:

1. Is it proper for an individual who possesses the dual qualifications of both a lawyer and a doctor to hold himself out to the public as qualified in both professions?

2. Are all of the members of a law firm guilty of impropriety when one member of the firm is guilty of unethical conduct?

3. Is it unethical for one firm of lawyers and two doctors all engaged in the general practice of law and medicine to occupy a one-story building and to advertise and name the building, “Medical-Legal Building”?

Syllabus 1. Dual Professions. It is improper for a lawyer to engage in the carrying on of dual professions when they are of such a nature or are so conducted as to be inconsistent with his duty to his client and as a member of the Bar.

Syllabus 2. Advertising. The person who is qualified as both a lawyer and a doctor must choose between holding himself out as a lawyer and holding himself out as a doctor, even when each profession is carried on from different locations.

Syllabus 3. Dual Professions. It is improper for a lawyer to practice two professions where there might be a possibility of a conflict of interest or a violation of confidence of the client.

Syllabus 4. Responsibility of Firm for its Member Acts. A firm of lawyers may not knowingly permit one of its members to engage in unethical conduct without each member of the firm becoming equally responsible for such acts of conduct.

Syllabus 5. Advertising. It is a violation of Canon 27 to advertise or name a building a “Law Building” or a “Medical-Legal Building” where only one firm of lawyers occupies said building.

OPINION

Question 1. When a person becomes a lawyer he takes on a mantle that he cannot thereafter take on or off as he pleases. Conduct in which he engages which involves the practice of law when engaged in by lawyers must be in accordance with the ethical standards of the profession if he is to retain his professional status.

Canon 47 provides, “No lawyer shall permit his professional services, or his name, to be used in aid of, or to make possible, the unauthorized practice of law by any lay agency, personal or corporate.”

In a number of opinions, both the Oklahoma Bar Association and the American Bar Association have held that it is unethical for a lawyer to engage in various other businesses and occupations where such business was of such a nature that readily lent itself to procuring professional employment for him as a lawyer, or was of such a nature that it could be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on a lawyers behalf, or was of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

While the practice of medicine if handled by a lawyer would not be regarded as the practice of law, this Committee feels that the maintenance of the strictest standards by both professions would be violated in many respects if a lawyer were permitted to engage in the practice of medicine.

Canon 6 states,

“The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidences forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.

“It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.”

Canon 35 states,

“The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibility should be direct to the client.”

Canon 37 states,

“It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s confidences. This duty outlasts the lawyer’s employment, and extends as well to his employees.”

It is this Committee’s opinion that the practice of medicine by a lawyer, from the same location or different locations, is by its nature so fraught with the dangers of conflict of interest, violation of the confidences of a client, and so readily lends itself as a cloak for indirect solicitation and the means for procuring professional employment, that it would be practically impossible to adhere to the Canons of Professional Ethics of the Bar Association. It is readily apparent that a doctor-lawyer, who treated a patient in a professional capacity, would become the patient’s confidant and as such, if retained by the patient to handle his legal matters in a lawyer-client relationship, could not ethically testify as a medical witness. It is patently obvious that a doctor who is in a confidential relationship with a patient is in a position to direct him in his legal affairs even though there might be a conflict of interest. The dual capacity of a doctor-patient and a lawyer-client relationship both one and at the same time by the same person is, in this Committee’s opinion, totally incompatible and is reprehensible. Since each by their very nature involves total devotion to the duties of the separate professions as well as extreme confidential relationship with the patient or client, avoidance of any suspicion of impropriety is of the utmost importance.

Question 2. A partnership is a separate legal entity and the relations of partners in a law firm are so close that the firm, and each member thereof, is responsible for knowingly permitting or condoning the unethical act of any one of its members. We have qualified this opinion by adding the word, “knowingly”, since it is conceivable that one member of a firm could be guilty of impropriety without the knowledge or consent of the other members. It is the opinion of this Committee that if any one of the members of the firm knows of acts of unethical conduct by his partner or associate, and permits such conduct to continue, passively or otherwise, that such member is equally guilty of misconduct.

Question 3. It is unethical to name a building, occupied by only one firm of lawyers, a “Law Building”, “Legal Building”, or any other name which would advertise the lawyers’ profession. It follows that using the name, “Medical_ Legal Building”, in the question submitted would be advertising and in violation of Canon 27.

See Canons 6, 27, 35, 37, and 162 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association; Advisory Opinions 185 and 208 of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and Advisory Opinions No. 33, 272, and 297, and Informal Opinions No. C_424, C_441, C_442, C_501, C_506, C_520, C_556, C_565, C_682, and C_709 of the American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics.