May a lawyer rubber-stamp his firm name on the face of an abstract of title to show that the firm examined it?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked about a rubber-stamp notation placed on the face of an abstract of title reading "Examined by [firm name]," "Opinion to [recipient firm]," and a date received. It held that using such a notation in that manner is unethical.

The committee began from Canon 27's prohibition on direct or indirect advertising and solicitation. It acknowledged, citing ABA Opinion 179, that Canon 27 does not bar an organized bar association from using advertising facilities to inform the public about the value of legal services, provided the effort is conducted by the bar rather than by individual lawyers so as to avoid any semblance of personal solicitation. It observed that ABA and Oklahoma opinions condemning personal advertising and solicitation were too numerous and well understood to require further citation.

Applying those principles, the committee reasoned that because the stamped notation remains a permanent part of the abstract, it would inform future purchasers that the named firm examined the title and might lead a buyer to assume no further examination was needed, or to send the abstract back to the listed firm for a later examination. The committee concluded it could not escape the conclusion that the notation would only serve to advertise the firm whose name appeared on it to everyone who saw the abstract, and was therefore unethical.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1966, 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 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 truthful identification of the lawyer who performed work 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm note on the abstract itself that it had examined the title?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee held that a permanent stamped notation naming the examining firm on the face of the abstract was unethical advertising under Canon 27.

Q: Why did the committee treat the stamp as advertising rather than a routine work record?

A: Because the notation stayed with the abstract permanently, the committee reasoned it would inform later purchasers of the firm's name and could prompt them to return the abstract to that firm, serving only to advertise it to everyone who saw the document.

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. It distinguished permissible public-education advertising by an organized bar (citing ABA Opinion 179) from a permanent notation on a title abstract that would advertise an individual firm. 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.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 179.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 232: A lawyer's interest in an abstract company
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 233: Lawyer listings in telephone directories
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 242: Bar association lawyer referral service

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-243/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted June 25, 1966

INQUIRY

This Committee has been asked for a formal opinion of the ethics involved in the following notation stamped upon the face of an Abstract of Title with a rubber stamp:

Line 1–Examined by

Line 2–Doe, Roe, and Brown (Fictitious firm name)

Line 3–Opinion to Consolidated Homes (Fictitious name of firm to whom sent.)

Line 4–Date received 12-29-64.

OPINION

Canon 27 forbids advertising or soliciting directly or indirectly by a lawyer. This canon as construed by the Legal Ethics Committee of the American Bar Association in opinion No. 179 does not prohibit the employment of advertising facilities to acquaint the lay public with the expert service the legal profession is able to render, especially in respect to those matters where the securing of competent legal advice and assistance in advance of acting will be calculated to protect the client's rights and interests; provided it is carried on by an organized Bar Association and not by individual lawyers, so that any semblance of personal solicitation and any impression that it is actuated by a selfish desire to secure greater professional employment is avoided.

Advisory opinions of the American Bar Association, and of the Oklahoma Bar Association condemning any semblance of personal advertising and solicitation as unethical, are too numerous and well understood to require further citation.

This Committee holds that the stamped notation on the Abstract of Title could be construed as personal solicitation or advertising since the notation remains a permament [sic] part of the Abstract it would serve to inform future purchasers that said Abstract has been examined by the firm named in the notation and might possibly cause a buyer to assume that since the title had been previously examined there would be no need for further examination. In any event a buyer upon seeing the notation certainly could be motivated to send the abstract back to the firm listed in the notation for a later examination.

This Committee cannot escape the conclusion that such a notation would only serve to advertise the firm whose name appeared thereon to all those who have occasion to see the Abstract. It is therefore the opinion of this Committee that the use of such notation in this manner is unethical.