|
Syllabus
The Committee has been asked to consider the propriety, under Canon 2 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of various types of signs or shingles used in connection with a lawyer's practice.
Opinion
The Committee believes that the problem here is one of effect. A sign or shingle is improper which has the effect of attracting special attention. The guiding principle is that a sign or shingle should do no more than assist a person, during normal working hours, to find the exact office location of a lawyer after the person has already, without influence by the sign or shingle, decided to consult a lawyer, selected a particular lawyer, and arrived at the street address or general location of the particular lawyer's office. See ABA Informal Opinion No. 132. This is reasonable in view of the general availability of telephone directories, law lists, and the knowledge of existing clients. See CBA Opinions No. 10 (1959) and No. 15 (1960).
Among those signs or shingles which are improper under this test are those which:
(a) Are artificially illuminated. This does not preclude use of light to make legible an ordinary building directory. Neon and spot lighting, however, are improper under all circumstances.
(b) Are excessively large. Letters of over four inches in height are rarely, if ever, justifiable.
(c) Refer to "attorney at law," "law office," or like terms, but fail to identify the lawyer by name or give unnecessary prominence to such terms.
(d) Identify in both capacities at either office a person who is a public employee (such as a district attorney) and who also engages in private law practice in a separate office. See CBA Opinions No. 15 (1960) and 32 (1964).
(e) Supplement other signs or shingles near the lawyer's office where unnecessary to guide persons to the office.
(f) Are apart from the building housing the lawyer's office and near the stream of automobile or pedestrian traffic, except where rendered proper by such facts as absence of a street numbering system or concealment of the office from both ordinary pedestrian and automobile traffic.
The Committee believes that a useful supplemental test is that a sign or shingle is improper if there is intent to advertise. See ABA Informal Opinion No. 132. This test has the virtue of adaptability to all factual situations and is helpful in evaluating close questions.
The fact that the sign is located in a shopping center, downtown, in a rural area, or in any other location; that it is one of several signs in a directory; or that it is near the offices of members of other professions does not change the application of the foregoing principles.
|
