Can a Texas firm keep offices in several cities, list a non-Texas-licensed partner, and run separate per-city Martindale-Hubbell sketches for all its members?

Plain-English summary

A special committee appointed by the State Bar's Board of Directors submitted three questions about future listings in law directories and similar publications. The questions asked whether the Canons were violated by (1) an attorney or firm maintaining offices in several different Texas cities; (2) listing on letterheads, in directories, in Martindale-Hubbell, or any approved form of professional listing a partner or associate not licensed to practice in Texas; and (3) a firm with offices in several cities carrying separate Martindale-Hubbell biographical sketches under each city including every member and associate, regardless of whether they actually reside and practice there.

On the first question, the Committee was unanimous that it is not a violation of any Canon for a firm to maintain offices in more than one Texas city.

On the second, the Committee was unanimous that listing such a partner or associate is not a violation, provided the person is licensed in one or more states other than Texas, the listing is limited to the particular office where he is active, the listing correctly reflects his status as a partner or associate and that he is not licensed in Texas, and that he is licensed in the state where he was first licensed.

On the third, with the exception of one member, the Committee was of the opinion that such multiple listings are unfair and violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Canon 39, and that the listing for a particular city should be confined to partners and associates who actually reside in, or who regularly come to and practice in, that city. The one dissenting member found no Texas Canon violated but viewed the multiple listings as unfair and possibly a violation of American Bar Canon 27, citing American Bar Opinion 249. The vote was 8-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1953, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The listing restrictions the opinion applies predate 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; truthful communications and firm letterheads, including jurisdictional limitations, are now addressed by ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. 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 Texas firm keep offices in more than one city?

A: Yes. The Committee was unanimous that maintaining offices in more than one Texas city violates no Canon.

Q: Could a firm list a partner not licensed in Texas?

A: Yes, with conditions: the person must be licensed in another state, the listing limited to the office where he is active, accurately stating his status and that he is not licensed in Texas, and showing the state of first licensure.

Q: Could a multi-office firm run separate per-city directory sketches listing all its members?

A: No. By an 8-1 vote, the Committee found such multiple listings unfair and contrary to the spirit of Canon 39; a city's listing should be confined to members who reside in or regularly practice in that city.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (solicitation) and 39 (professional cards and listings), with the dissent referencing American Bar Canon 27, applied to law-directory and Martindale-Hubbell listings for multi-city firms. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24 (solicitation), 39 (professional cards and listings)
• American Bar Canon 27 (cited by the dissenting member)

Other opinions cited:

• American Bar Opinion 249: cited by the dissenting member on multiple listings

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 68: 'Tax Service' Card in a Legal Directory
• TX Ethics Op. 80: Listing in a Rural-Suburban Directory
• TX Ethics Op. 238: Forwarding Fee to an Out-of-State Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-64/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_64.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

The following questions were submitted to this committee by a special committee appointed by the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas to investigate and make recommendations to the Board of Directors for the purpose of working out some plan or policy for future listings in law directories and similar publications. The questions have received careful and detailed consideration at the hands of this committee, and the predecessor committee. This committee also acknowledges the very helpful cooperation of Mr. Edward J. Nofer, Vice-President and General Manager of Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., in arriving at a proper solution of the matter.

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney or a firm of attorneys to maintain offices in several different cities in Texas?
Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney or a firm of attorneys to list on letterheads, in directories, in Martindale-Hubbell, or any approved form of professional listing, either a partner or an associate who is not licensed to practice in the State of Texas?
Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for an attorney or a firm of attorneys who maintain offices in several different cities in Texas to carry in the biographical section of Martindale- Hubbell Directory, separate biographical sketches under each city, which includes every member and associate of the attorney or firm, regardless of whether or not such member or associate actually resides and practices in such city?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 223 (1966)

OFFICES IN DIFFERENT CITIES
A law firm may maintain offices in more than one city in Texas.

PROFESSIONAL LISTING - LETTERHEADS - ATTORNEY NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE
An attorney or a law firm may list on letterheads, in directories, in Martindale-Hubbell, or any approved form of professional listing, a partner or an associate who is not licensed to practice in Texas, provided he is a licensed attorney in one or more states other than Texas, the listing is limited to the office of the firm where he is active, the listing correctly reflects his status as a partner or associate, that he is not licensed to practice in Texas, and that he is licensed in the state where he was first licensed.

PROFESSIONAL LISTINGS - MULTIPLE LISTINGS
An attorney or a law firm maintaining offices in different cities in Texas may not carry in the biographical section of Martindale-Hubbell Directory separate biographical sketches under each city, including every associate and member of the attorney or firm, regardless of whether the associate or member resides and practices in the city. The listing, as to a particular city, should be confined to the associates and members who reside in, or who regularly come to and practice in, the city where they are listed.

Canons 24, 39.

The committee is unanimous in its view that it is not a violation of any Canon for a firm to maintain offices in more than one city in Texas.
This committee is unanimous in its opinion that it is not a violation of any Canon of Ethics, provided such partner or associate is a licensed attorney in one or more states other than Texas, the listing of such partner or associate is limited to the particular office of the firm where he is active; such listing correctly reflects his status as a partner or associate, that he is not licensed to practice in Texas, and that he is licensed in the state where he was first so licensed.
With the exception of one member, this committee is of the opinion that such multiple listings are unfair and violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Canon 39. The committee is further of the opinion that such listing, as to a particular city, should be confined to the partners and associates who actually reside in, or who regularly come to and practice in the city where they are listed.

The other member could find no Texas Canon which was violated, but was of the opinion that such multiple listings were unfair, and may violate American Bar Canon 27, citing American Bar Opinion 249 in support of that view. (8-1)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 64 (1953)