Does it violate the Texas Canons for a law review to identify a contributing lawyer-author by his firm name, in addition to his name and city?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether identifying a contributing lawyer-author in a state law review by his firm name, in addition to his name and the city in which he practices, would violate the Canons.

The Committee unanimously concluded the Canons of Ethics were promulgated to govern the professional conduct of members of the State Bar, so the conduct of a law review (a lay organization, not a member of the Bar) is not subject to the Canons (8-0). It treated the law review's identification policy as solely within its discretion, but five members expressed the opinion that the better practice would be to continue listing only the city in which the author practices. On the lawyer's own conduct, two members suggested there would be no violation if the lawyer did not request, direct, or in any manner cause the firm name to be published, and one member thought that, given the nature and distribution of the publication, listing the firm name would not constitute solicitation by the attorney under the Canons.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1958, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Do the Texas Canons govern how a law review identifies its authors?

A: No. The Committee held the Canons govern members of the State Bar, so a law review, as a lay organization, is not subject to them, and its identification policy is within its discretion.

Q: What did the committee consider the better practice for lawyer-author bylines?

A: Five members expressed the opinion that the better practice would be to continue listing only the lawyer's name and the city in which he practices, without the firm name.

Q: Could the lawyer be at fault if the firm name appeared?

A: Two members suggested there would be no violation if the lawyer did not request, direct, or cause the firm name to be published, and one member thought listing the firm name would not constitute solicitation given the publication's nature and distribution.

Background and rules framework

The Committee held no Canon governs the conduct of a law review, which is a lay organization rather than a member of the State Bar. The lawyer-side discussion concerned whether publishing a firm name with a byline would amount to solicitation by the attorney under the Canons; the opinion cited no specific numbered Canon. The modern analogs to that advertising and solicitation concern are ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• The opinion cites no specific numbered Canon; it holds the Canons do not govern the law review.

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 216: Bank Executor of Reciprocal Wills (Outside the Canons)
• TX Ethics Op. 221: Office-Move Announcements to Clients
• TX Ethics Op. 224: Lawyer Ad in a Circus Program

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-212/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_212.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Practicing attorneys who author articles appearing in a law review published in the state are presently identified by name and a footnote indicating only the city in which they practice. Would there be any violation of the Canons of Ethics if the name of the firm with which the author is associated were also included in the identification?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 299 (1966)

LAW REVIEWS - IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS BY LISTING FIRM NAMES
The Canons of Ethics do not apply to law reviews published within this state. The policies of a law review are solely within its discretion. However, it is thought that the better practice for identifying contributing lawyer authors is to list only the lawyer's name and the city in which he practices, and not include an indication of his firm's name.

The Canons of Ethics of the State Bar were promulgated for the purpose of governing the professional conduct of the members of the State Bar. Therefore, the committee is of the unanimous opinion that the conduct of a law review is not subject to the Canons of Ethics simply because it is a lay organization and not a member of the Bar.

Although considering the policies of a law review to be solely within its discretion, five members of the committee expressed the opinion that the better practice for identifying lawyers contributing articles would be to continue listing only the city in which they practice.

Two members of the committee, commenting upon whether there would be a violation of the Canons by the lawyer involved, suggest there would be no violation if the lawyer did not in any way request, direct or in any manner cause the name of his firm to be published in connection with the article. One member expressed the view that because of the nature and distribution of the publication an indication of the firm name would not constitute solicitation by the attorney as contemplated by the Canons. (8-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 212 (1958)