Can a law firm put large neon signs with the lawyers' names on the outside of its office building?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described two neon signs placed on two sides of a corner downtown building occupied by a law firm, with the lawyers' names in letters approximately two feet high and the entire sign extending 10 to 12 feet along the side of the building, and asked whether they violated any Canon.

The committee noted the question caused it concern in light of its earlier Opinion 38, in which a previous committee had held, not unanimously, that a smaller neon sign in a suburban shopping center did not violate the Canons.

The committee was unanimous that the sign described constituted commercial advertising in violation of Canon 24. It recognized the difficulty of stating a single rule for signs that would fit every situation and concluded that each case must be decided on its own facts. The committee concluded that signs which serve merely to designate the attorney's office should be permissible, should be conservative under all the circumstances, and should not approach commercial advertising. The vote was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1952, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The advertising restriction 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Why were these neon signs improper?

A: The committee found that two signs with two-foot lettering running 10 to 12 feet along a downtown building went beyond designating the office and constituted commercial advertising barred by Canon 24 (9-0).

Q: What kind of office sign did the committee say was acceptable?

A: The committee concluded that signs which merely designate the attorney's office are permissible if they are conservative under all the circumstances and do not approach commercial advertising.

Q: How did this square with the earlier Opinion 38 allowing a neon sign?

A: The committee distinguished Opinion 38, where a previous and not-unanimous committee had allowed a smaller suburban sign, and held that sign questions turn on the particular facts; the much larger downtown signs here crossed into commercial advertising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 24, which restricted advertising and solicitation, as applied to exterior office signage. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising), which replaced the categorical Canon-era bans 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 1952 opinion)

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 38 (earlier opinion allowing a smaller suburban neon sign, distinguished here)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 38: Smaller Suburban Neon Sign Permitted
• TX Ethics Op. 60: Newspaper Card Reciting Years of Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 51: Listing in a Classified Directory

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-44/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_44.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Are two neon signs, placed on two sides of a corner downtown building occupied by a firm of lawyers and containing the names of the lawyers in letters approximately 2 ft. in height with the entire sign extending from 10 to 12 ft. along the side of the building, in violation of any Canon of Ethics?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 214 (1966)

SOLICITATION - ADVERTISING - NEON SIGNS
Two neon signs, on two sides of a corner downtown building occupied by a law firm, containing the names of the lawyers in letters approximately two feet high, the entire sign extended 10 to 12 feet along the side of the building, is improper.

Canon 24.

This question has caused the committee a great deal of concern, especially in view of its Opinion No. 38 in which it was held that a smaller neon sign in a suburban shopping center was not in violation of the Canons of Ethics. That opinion was rendered by a previous committee and was not unanimous.

This committee is unanimous in its opinion that the sign described constitutes commercial advertising and is in violation of Canon 24. The committee recognized the difficulty in establishing or applying a rule or opinion regarding signs that would fit every situation and feels that a decision will have to be on each set of facts and circumstances presented. The committee feels that signs which serve merely to designate the attorney's office should be permissible and should be conservative under all of the circumstances and should not, in any event, approach commercial advertising. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 44 (1952)