May a lawyer let his name appear on a government agency's list of 'qualified examiners,' and may a lay company advertise 'Bonded-Lawyers' on a form it gives its customers?

Plain-English summary

After the Federal Aviation Agency moved its office to Oklahoma City and a nationwide demand for aircraft title searches arose, the committee was asked two questions about lawyers' participation in that work. First, the FAA maintained a list of "qualified examiners" that included both lay companies and local attorneys; was it proper for a lawyer to let his name appear on the list? Second, a lay company distributed a form for customers to request "Examiner's Certificates" bearing the quoted phrase "Bonded-Lawyers"; was that phrase proper?

The committee answered "No" to both. On the list, it reasoned that the FAA distributed the roster on inquiry, so a lawyer whose name appeared on it was in effect soliciting business in direct violation of Canon 27. Because any member of the bar was equally qualified to make such a search, the committee said it was incumbent on listed lawyers, whether or not they solicited the listing, to see that their names were removed.

On the "Bonded-Lawyers" phrase, the committee called the term such a flagrant violation of Canon 33 and Canon 47 that it hardly required comment. It identified three possibilities: if the lay agency actually employed lawyers, those lawyers violated the Canons by letting their office be exploited; if the agency was a cloak for lawyers seeking to avoid the ethical prohibitions, it was equally reprehensible; and if no lawyers were involved, the term was a fraud. In any event the committee said the Association should take steps to see the practice discontinued.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1961, during the era of the Canons of Professional Ethics, before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The advertising and solicitation premises underlying 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 lawyer participation in approved listings and referral arrangements is treated differently 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 let his name go on a government agency's roster of approved examiners or searchers?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee concluded that because the FAA distributed the list on request, a lawyer whose name appeared on it was in effect soliciting business in violation of Canon 27, and listed lawyers had to get their names removed.

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer never asked to be put on the list?

A: No. The committee said it was incumbent on listed lawyers to see that they were removed "whether they solicited such listing or not."

Q: Why was the phrase "Bonded-Lawyers" on the lay company's form improper?

A: The committee found it a flagrant violation of Canons 33 and 47: if the company employed lawyers, they let their office be exploited; if it was a cloak for lawyers evading the Canons, it was equally reprehensible; and if no lawyers were involved, the term was a fraud.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, which barred direct and indirect advertising and solicitation, to a lawyer's appearance on a government list of qualified examiners. It applied Canon 33 (partnerships and firm names) and Canon 47 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law and lending one's name) to a lay company's "Bonded-Lawyers" advertising. 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): bars direct and indirect advertising and solicitation of professional employment.
• Canon 33: partnerships and the use of firm names.
• Canon 47: a lawyer should not aid the unauthorized practice of law or permit his professional services to be used by a lay agency.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 231: Counsel listing in a savings-and-loan statement
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 232: A lawyer's interest in an abstract company
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 233: Lawyer listings in telephone directories

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-241/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted December 14, 1961

Since the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) has moved its office to Oklahoma City, a nation-wide demand for certificates of search has arisen. In connection with these searches, several questions of ethical conduct of members of the Bar have been submitted.

INQUIRY

(1) The FAA maintains a list of "qualified examiners" which includes both lay companies and local attorneys. Is it proper for a member of the Bar to permit his name to be included on such list?

(2) A lay company distributes a form for its customers to use in requesting "Examiner's Certificates." On this form in quotations appear the words "Bonded-Lawyers." Is it proper for such a phrase to so appear?

OPINION

The answer to both questions is "No." The so-called list of "qualified examiners" is distributed by the FAA upon inquiry with the result that a member of the Bar whose name appears thereon is in effect soliciting business in direct violation of Canon 27. Any member of the Bar is as fully qualified to make a search of those records as those whose names appear on the list and it is incumbent upon those whose names do appear, whether they solicited such listing or not, to see that they are removed.

As to the second inquiry, the use of the term "Bonded-Lawyers" is such a flagrant violation of Canon 33 and Canon 47 that it hardly requires comment. If the lay agency actually employs lawyers, these lawyers are in violation of the canon by permitting their office to be exploited. If the "lay agency" is actually a cloak for lawyers to avoid the ethical prohibitions, it is equally reprehensible. If in fact no lawyers are involved, it is a fraud. In any event the Association should take steps to see that the practice is discontinued.