Can a lawyer office with a bail-bond company, sign under its bail-bonds sign, and be paid by the bondsmen to get habeas writs for their customers?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a lawyer officing with a company whose only business was making bail bonds. The building carried a large neon "Bail Bonds" sign and several others, including a three-foot sign reading "Bail Bonds, Day or Night," with the lawyer's name and "Attorney at Law" in small letters on the window under the bail-bonds sign. The lawyer was employed by the bondsmen to obtain writs of habeas corpus, usually without seeing the client, and was paid a portion of the money the bondsmen received for making the bond; in most cases the bondsmen notified the client when the case was set, and until then the client had paid the lawyer no fee.

All members agreed the facts violate the Canons (9-0). Members designated the canons violated, variously, as Texas Canons 24, 25, 31, 32, and 43 and American Bar Canons 27 and 35. One member cited ABA Opinions 35, 57, 198, and 225 in support. The opinion separately framed the problems as improper signage and joint occupancy (solicitation), stirring up litigation by being employed to obtain writs for the company's customers, and an improper division of fees between the attorney and the bondsmen.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1957, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which loosened categorical advertising restrictions, though prohibitions on solicitation were not eliminated. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 keep his small sign under the company's bail-bonds sign?

A: No. The Committee treated the signage and joint occupancy as improper solicitation under the Canons (9-0).

Q: What was wrong with being paid by the bondsmen to get habeas writs?

A: The Committee viewed it as stirring up litigation and an improper division of fees between the attorney and the bondsmen, with the lawyer typically not even seeing the client and collecting from the bond money rather than a client fee.

Q: Which canons did the Committee rely on?

A: Members designated, variously, Texas Canons 24, 25, 31, 32, and 43 and American Bar Canons 27 and 35.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 25 (advertising and solicitation), 31 (division of fees), 32 (relations with lay intermediaries), and 43 (unauthorized practice), and references American Canons 27 and 35. The modern analogs include ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation) and Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence and sharing fees with nonlawyers).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation), as a modern analog
• MR 5.4 (professional independence; sharing fees with nonlawyers), as a modern analog
• Texas Canons 24, 25, 31, 32, and 43 (designated variously by members)
• American (ABA) Canons 27 and 35

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinions 35, 57, 198, and 225: cited by one member

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 141: Lawyer in the Bail-Bond Business
• TX Ethics Op. 140: Lawyer as Surety on a Client's Bond
• TX Ethics Op. 160: Lending Letterhead for Collections

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-142/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_142.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney to office with a company whose only business is the making of bail bonds, and whose office has a large neon sign reading "Bail Bonds" and several other signs on the windows and across the front of the building, one of the signs being three feet high, and read­ing "Bail Bonds, Day or Night," and the attorney having his name and At­torney at Law in small letters on the window under the bail bonds sign, and said attorney being employed by the bail bondsmen to obtain Writs of Habeas Corpus, usually without the attorney seeing the client, and the attorney being paid a portion of the money received by the bondsmen for making the bail bond, and in most cases when the case is set by the Court the bondsmen notify the client that his case is set and up to that time the client has paid the attorney no fee whatsoever?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 254 (1966)

SOLICITATION - SIGNS - JOINT OCCUPANTS
An attorney who occupies an office with a bail bond company, may not have his professional sign, even in small letters, beneath the companies prominent sign advertising that it deals in bail bonds.

STIRRING UP LITIGATION
It is improper for an attorney to be employed by a bail bond company to obtain Writs of Habeas Corpus for the company's customers, usually without the attorney seeing the customer.

DIVISION OF FEES - ATTORNEY AND BONDSMEN
It is improper for an attorney, who is employed by a bail bond company, to obtain Writs of Habeas Corpus for its bond customers when in the usual course the attorney does not see the client until that time the client has paid the attorney no fees whatsoever.

Canons 24, 25, 31, 32, 43. A.B.A. Canons 27, 35.

All members are of the opinion that the facts stated constitute a violation of the Canons of Ethics. Canons violated were designated (differently by various members) as Texas Canons 24, 25, 31, 32, and 43 and American Bar Canons 27 and 35. Opinions 35, 57, 198 and 225 of the American Bar Association have been cited in support by one member. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 142 (1957)