Can attorneys who own an office building give it a name like "Justice Plaza" that signals lawyers practice inside?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether an attorney who owned a building could call it "Justice Plaza," where the building was occupied by the attorney-owners and also housed the County Legal Aid office. The Committee answered that he could not.

The Committee reasoned that DR 2-101 barred a lawyer from preparing any form of public communication containing professionally self-laudatory statements calculated to attract lay clients, and that the prohibition reached any form of commercial publicity. Giving a building a name that implied its occupants were lawyers was, in the Committee's view, no more than commercial publicity, served no useful purpose, and was a mere form of indirect solicitation. It added that the conduct also offended the spirit of Canon 1 (maintaining the integrity of the profession) and Canon 9 (avoiding even the appearance of impropriety), observing that the profession was "not relaxing the standard against advertising, and should not."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1974, under the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, 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 held that categorical bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment; the flat prohibition the opinion applied has since been substantially narrowed, and lawyer advertising is now governed by Texas Rules 7.01 to 7.04, whose ABA analogs are Model Rules 7.1 and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 attorneys who owned the building name it "Justice Plaza"?

A: No. The Committee concluded that a building name implying its occupants are lawyers is commercial publicity and indirect solicitation prohibited by DR 2-101.

Q: Did it matter that the County Legal Aid office also occupied the building?

A: No. The Committee treated the name as improper even though the building housed the attorney-owners and the County Legal Aid office, because the name itself implied the occupants were lawyers.

Q: Which rule did the Committee rely on?

A: DR 2-101, which barred public communications containing self-laudatory statements calculated to attract lay clients, reaching any form of commercial publicity. The Committee also invoked the spirit of Canons 1 and 9.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-101 of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibited a lawyer from causing the preparation of public communications that were professionally self-laudatory and calculated to attract lay clients, a prohibition the Committee read to include "any form of commercial publicity." The Committee tied the conclusion to Canon 1 and Canon 9. The framework reflects the pre-Bates posture in which lawyer advertising was broadly prohibited; the modern analogs are Texas Rules 7.01 to 7.04 and ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1, MR 7.2 (communications and advertising concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analogs
• DR 2-101 (former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility)
• Canon 1 (maintaining the integrity of the profession); Canon 9 (avoiding the appearance of impropriety)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 385: Office and Building Signs for Lawyers
• TX Ethics Op. 383: Office Signs or Placards Stating the Nature of Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 386: Telephone Directory Listings for Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-379/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_379.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May an attorney-building owner give to his building the name "Justice Plaza" even though such building is occupied by attorneys, as well as by the County Legal Aid office?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PUBLICITY - NAME OF BUILDING
The name "Justice Plaza" may not properly be given to a building which is owned by a group of attorneys although said building is occupied by the attorneys, as well as the County Legal Aid office.

DR 2-101 prohibits a lawyer from preparing or causing to be prepared any form of public communication that contains professionally self-laudatory statements calculated to attract lay clients. Such prohibition includes any form of commercial publicity. To give a building such name as to imply that occupants of the building are lawyers is no more than commercial publicity. Such name serves no useful purpose, and is a mere form of indirect solicitation.

Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall assist in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. Canon 9 provides that a lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. The conduct in question would also violate the spirit of Canon 1 and Canon 9. Despite the numerous changes in business practices, the legal profession is not relaxing the standard against advertising, and should not.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 379 (1974)