Can a lawyer publish a name-address-phone listing in a newspaper's 'professional directory' classified column?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether publishing professional cards (for attorneys other than patent, copyright, and admiralty attorneys) showing only the attorney's name, address, and telephone number in the "professional directory" classified columns of newspapers was unethical.

The committee noted that, for all practical purposes, this was the same question covered by its Opinion 7 (April 1947). A majority gave the unqualified opinion that such a listing does not violate any Canon. Because the question and similar ones arose frequently and divided the Bar, the committee was unanimous that the matter should be considered by the State Bar of Texas as a whole at its next annual meeting, where formal action should be taken. The vote was 9-1. The published opinion carries a notation that it has been overruled to the extent it conflicts with Opinion 68.

Currency note

The Texas Professional Ethics Committee notes that this opinion has been overruled to the extent it conflicts with the later Opinion 68; treat its conclusion as superseded to that extent. This opinion was issued in 1950, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The advertising framework the opinion applies also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which held that categorical bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment, so the Canon framework used here has since been substantially narrowed; lawyer advertising is now addressed by ABA Model Rule 7.2. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer run a bare name-address-phone listing in a newspaper professional directory?

A: A majority of the committee (9-1) gave the unqualified opinion that such a listing did not violate any Canon, treating it as the same question as its earlier Opinion 7.

Q: Is that 1950 conclusion still reliable?

A: No, not fully. The opinion is overruled to the extent it conflicts with the later Opinion 68, which addressed "tax service" lines in newspaper cards, and the whole Canon-era advertising framework was later narrowed by Bates.

Q: Did the committee treat the question as settled?

A: No. It found the question frequent and divisive and unanimously urged that the State Bar of Texas take formal action on the subject at its next annual meeting.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 and 39 (advertising, solicitation, and professional listings), applied to newspaper professional-directory columns, and refers back to the committee's Opinion 7 (April 1947). The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 (advertising), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 and 39

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977), held categorical bans on lawyer advertising unconstitutional (noted for currency; not cited in the 1950 opinion)

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 7 (Apr. 1947), the same question on newspaper listings
• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 68 (later opinion that overrules Op. 29 to the extent of any conflict)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 68: "Tax Service" on a Professional Card
• TX Ethics Op. 30: Yellow-Pages Listings Under "Attorneys"
• TX Ethics Op. 52: "Tax Service" on a Letterhead or Directory

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-29/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_29.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is the publication of professional cards by attorneys (other than patent, copyright and admiralty attorneys), listing only the attorney's name, address and telephone number, in "professional directory" classified columns of newspapers considered unethical?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 202 (1966)

SOLICITATION - PROFESSIONAL LISTINGS - NEWSPAPERS
The publication of professional listings by attorneys (other than patent, copyright and admiralty attorneys), listing only the attorney's name, address and telephone number, in "professional directory" classified columns of newspapers is proper. (This opinion has been overruled to the extent that it conflicts with Opinion 68.)

Canons 24, 39.

It is the unanimous opinion of the committee that, for all practical purposes, this is the same question covered by Opinion 7 of this committee, which was handed down in April, 1947, and reference is here made to such prior opinion.

It is the unqualified opinion of the majority of the present committee that such listing does not violate any Canon of Ethics.

Because of the frequency with which this question, and similar questions on the subject arise, and the diversity of views among members of the Bar in regard thereto, it is the unanimous opinion of the committee that this matter should be carefully considered by the State Bar of Texas, as a whole, at its next regular annual meeting, where formal action should be taken. (9-1)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 29 (1950)