Can a lawyer put a modest neon sign with his name and phone number over the entrance to his suburban office?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a neon sign, approximately five feet long by two feet high, containing the attorney's name and telephone number over the entrance to his office in a suburban shopping center, violated any Canon.

The committee noted that a careful search of both the American Bar and Texas Bar opinions failed to reveal where a similar question had ever been decided. A majority concluded that such a sign did not violate any canon. The vote was 6-4.

This opinion was later distinguished by the committee in Opinion 44, which held that much larger neon signs (two-foot lettering running 10 to 12 feet along a downtown building) crossed into commercial advertising barred by Canon 24.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1951, 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 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was a modest neon office sign allowed under the 1951 Canons?

A: A majority of the committee concluded (6-4) that a roughly 5-by-2-foot neon sign with the lawyer's name and telephone number over his suburban office entrance did not violate any canon.

Q: Why was the vote so close?

A: The committee found no prior Texas or ABA opinion on the question, and the members divided 6-4 on whether the sign was permissible, reflecting that sign questions turned on the particular facts.

Q: How does this square with the later Opinion 44?

A: Opinion 44 distinguished this opinion, holding that much larger neon signs with two-foot lettering running 10 to 12 feet along a downtown building constituted commercial advertising barred by Canon 24.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation), applied to a modest exterior office sign. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising), which replaced the Canon-era restrictions after Bates.

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
• Texas Canon 24 (advertising and solicitation)

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 1951 opinion)

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 44 (later opinion distinguishing this one and barring much larger downtown neon signs)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 44: Large Neon Office Signs as Improper Advertising
• TX Ethics Op. 40: A Lawyer's Income-Tax Newspaper Advertisement
• TX Ethics Op. 60: Newspaper Card Reciting Years of Practice

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-38/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_38.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Would the use of a neon sign, approximately (five) 5 feet long by two (2) feet in height, containing the attorney's name and telephone number, over the entrance to his office located in a suburban shopping center, be in violation of any Canon of Ethics?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 212 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - NEON SIGNS
A neon sign, approximately 5 feet long and 2 feet high, containing the attorney's name and telephone number, over the entrance to his office in a suburban shopping center, is proper.

Canon 24.

A careful search of the opinions, both of the American Bar and the Texas Bar, failed to reveal where a similar question had ever been passed upon. A majority of the members of the committee are of the opinion that such a sign does not violate any canon. (6-4)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 38 (1951)