Can a group of lawyers name the office building they own and occupy a 'Legal Clinic'?

Plain-English summary

Several attorneys planned to build their own office building and to give it a name identifying it with the law. They asked whether there was any objection under the Canons to calling it a "Legal Clinic."

The Committee said using the name "Legal Clinic" for such a building was sufficiently close to advertising and enough below the dignity of the profession that it should be labeled a failure to conform both to Canon 24 and to the general standards of the profession. It noted there is nothing unethical in lawyers building their own office building, individually or as a group, and nothing wrong with naming it, so long as the name is not misleading and does not constitute indirect advertising. As an example, "Court House Annex" would be misleading because it suggests an official building. Calling the building "Legal Clinic" would be indirect advertising and could be considered solicitation, the Committee added, observing that lawyers cannot practice under an assumed or trade name and that, as held in New York City Opinions 596 and 645, a "Legal Clinic" listing cannot be inserted in a telephone directory. The ruling was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1961, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can lawyers name their office building "Legal Clinic"?

A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee said the name was close enough to advertising and below the dignity of the profession to fail Canon 24 and the general standards of the profession.

Q: Can lawyers name a building they own at all?

A: The Committee said yes, there is nothing wrong with naming a building any name desired so long as it is not misleading and does not constitute indirect advertising; it gave "Court House Annex" as an example of a misleading name.

Q: Why was "Legal Clinic" treated as advertising?

A: The Committee said the name would be indirect advertising and could be considered solicitation, noting that lawyers cannot practice under an assumed or trade name and that a "Legal Clinic" listing had been held improper in a telephone directory.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which prohibited advertising and solicitation, as applied to the name of a lawyer-owned office building. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.5, on firm names and professional designations, including trade names.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.5 (firm names, designations, and trade names), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 24 (former canon)

Other opinions cited:

• New York City Opinions 596 and 645: a "Legal Clinic" listing cannot be inserted in a telephone directory

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 254: Naming a 'Lawyers Building'
• TX Ethics Op. 263: Firm Name Without a Partnership
• TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" Shingle

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-242/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_242.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Several attorneys contemplate building their own office building and propose to give the building some name identifying it with the Law.
Would there be any objection, under the Canons of Ethics, to using the name of "Legal Clinic" for such a building?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 321 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING
The name "Legal Clinic" may not properly be given to a building which is built by a group of attorneys and which is to be used by them as an office building.

Canon 24

The committee is of the opinion that the use of the name "Legal Clinic" for such a building is sufficiently close to advertising and is enough below the dignity of the profession that is should be labeled a failure to conform to the general standards of the profession as well as a failure to conform to Canon 24.

There is nothing unethical in lawyers, individually or as a group, building an office building of their own, further, there is nothing wrong with giving any name desired to the building as long as the name is not misleading or as long as it does not constitute indirect advertising. For example, "Court House Annex" would be a misleading name because it indicates some kind of official building, and it would constitute indirect advertising and could be considered solicitation of business by the lawyers involved to call such a building "Legal Clinic." Lawyers can not practice under such an assumed name or trade name, and it has been held (New York City opinions 596 and 645) that a listing of "Legal Clinic" cannot be inserted in a telephone directory. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 242 (1961)