Can a lawyer put the designation 'Proctor in Admiralty' on his letterhead?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it violates the canons for a lawyer to use the designation "Proctor in Admiralty" on his letterhead.

The Committee held it does. It explained that the Texas Canons prohibit listing specialties on letterheads unless an exception is made. Although ABA Canon 27, by a 1961 amendment, provides that a proctor in admiralty may use that designation on his letterhead or shingle, that exception to the general prohibition on advertising had not been adopted in Texas. The Committee therefore held that "proctor in admiralty" cannot properly appear on a letterhead any more than other specialties falling under the general prohibition. The Committee ruled 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer list 'Proctor in Admiralty' on his letterhead in Texas?

A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee held the Texas Canons prohibited listing specialties on letterheads and treated "Proctor in Admiralty" the same as other specialties.

Q: Didn't the ABA allow the proctor-in-admiralty designation?

A: The Committee acknowledged that a 1961 amendment to ABA Canon 27 permitted a proctor in admiralty to use that designation, but said this was an exception Texas had not adopted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 41, on advertising and listing specialties, as applied to a letterhead designation. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications concerning a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.4, on communicating fields of practice and specialization.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 and 41 (former canons)
• ABA Canon 27 (as amended 1961), referenced

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 305: Listing Practice Specialties on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 289: Registered Patent Attorney's Listing and Specialization in Texas
• TX Ethics Op. 291: Academic and C.P.A. Initials on a Lawyer's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-267/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_267.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 a member to use the designation "Proctor in Admiralty" on his letterhead?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 342 (1966)

SOLICITATION - SPECIALISTS
A member may not properly include on his letterhead the designation "Proctor in Admiralty."

Canons 24, 41.

The Texas Canons of Ethics prohibit the listing of specialties on letterheads unless an exception is made. Although ABA Canon 27, by virtue of an amendment in 1961, provides that a proctor in admiralty may "use that designation on his letterhead or shingle," this is an exception to the general prohibition of advertising which has not been adopted in Texas. Therefore, the committee holds that "proctor in admiralty" cannot properly appear on letterheads any more than the other various specialties which fall under the general prohibition. (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 267 (1963)