Ethics Opinions
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct




Date of Opinion: 06/17/2003

Opinion Number: 03-06

Title: ADVERTISING: EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION

Opinion: You are two lawyers who both practice in the area of criminal law, though in separate firms. You wish to advertise jointly your availability to speak to college organizations (athletic departments, fraternities, sororities, etc.) about the civil and criminal consequences of alcohol- and drug-related activity. You contemplate writing the leaders of such organizations to inform them of your willingness to present a program upon request and to explain what the program would entail. You would communicate to these leaders using letterhead that bears the title “Leveling the Scales of Justice,” beneath which would appear your individual names and your firm names, addresses, and telephone numbers. At the program itself, you would hand out explanatory brochures or outlines and would distribute your business cards “in order to address any future questions that [the] presentation may generate.” You would not charge a fee for the presentation.

You seek the Board’s opinion whether the foregoing would violate the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (“Code”).

It is the opinion of the Board:

1. The contemplated activities constitute advertising and are subject to the provisions of Canon 2 of the Code. See Board Formal Opinion 89–41.

2. The Code permits your participation in a program to inform nonlawyers about the legal consequences of criminal conduct. You may accept employment resulting from such participation so long as your presentation and accompanying materials do not emphasize your own professional experience or reputation and do not include individual advice. See DR 2–104(A)(4); EC 2–5. See also Board Formal Opinion 81–29 (lawyer “should assiduously avoid making any public appearances operate as a ‘feeder’ to [his or her] law practice.”).

3. The use of the proposed letterhead (“Leveling the Scales of Justice”) would violate the Code’s prohibition on trade names, see DR 2–102(B), and may also imply an affiliation between the two of you (or between your firms) that does not in fact exist. The title may be used for the program itself, however.

4. Distribution of explanatory brochures or outlines at the presentation would not be improper, provided the content thereof is permitted by the Code. You should review all applicable Code provisions, especially DR 2–101(A) and DR 2–101(C).

5. Distribution of your business cards to attendees at the presentation, without request, would constitute in-person solicitation, in violation of DR 2–101(B)(4)(a). See Committee on Prof’l. Ethics & Conduct v. Mathias, 521 N.W.2d 704, 706 (Iowa 1994). The prohibition would not apply to distribution of a card to one who has been your client, unless you have reason to know the attorney-client relationship has been terminated. See DR 2–101(A) (second paragraph).

6. Neither of you has certified eligibility to advertise practice in the area of criminal law. See DR 2–105(B) and (C). The proposed activities would serve to advertise your practice in that area. See Board Formal Opinion 89–41. Therefore, if either of you identifies himself as a lawyer in any communication or publication regarding these activities, he must further identify himself as having a “general practice, including but not limited to criminal law.” See DR 2–101(C)(2)(b) and DR 2–105(D).

7. Your letters to leaders of the organizations for whom you wish to make presentations would be direct mail advertising as defined in DR 2–101(B)(4)(c). Therefore, you must comply with the labeling and filing requirements of DR 2–101(B)(4)(d).