OPINION 192
December 1958

SOLICITATION - PROFESSIONAL LISTING - NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT - A newspaper advertisement that an attorney formerly serving on the tax staff of an accounting firm is now engaged in private practice, specializing in tax matters, is improper.

SOLICITATION - PROFESSIONAL CARDS - Distribution of a professional card to both lawyers and laymen, announcing that an attorney formerly serving with the U. S. Treasury Department and on the tax staff of an accounting firm is now engaged in private practice, specializing in tax matters, is improper.

 Canons 24, 39, 42.

Question

Is the publication of the following advertisement in a newspaper by a Texas attorney a violation of the Canons of Ethics:

JOHN DOE
Attorney at Law
Formerly of the Tax Staff of __________________________ Accounting Firm
Announces the re-opening of offices for the practice of law
Specializing in the field of income,
Estate, gift and excise taxation including estate and trust planning
___________ Building
Telephone _____________,
____________, Texas

Is distribution by Texas lawyer, both to lawyers and persons who are not lawyers, of the following announcement card a violation of the Canons of Ethics:

JOHN DOE
Attorney at Law
Formerly of the Tax Staff of ___________ Accounting Firm and formerly ______________U.S. Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
Announces the opening of offices for the practice of law specializing in the field of income, estate, gift and excise taxation including estate and trust planning
___________ Building
Telephone _____________,
____________ , Texas

Opinion

The Committee is of the unanimous opinion that both the insertion of the advertisement in the newspaper and the distribution of the announcement card constitute violations of Canons 24 and 39. Such announcements in newspapers have been condemned as being in violation of the Canons of Ethics is this Committee's Opinions Nos.5, 40, 60, 68 and 169. Such distribution of the announcement card is not sanctioned by Canon 42. (See also Opinions 15, 72, 96; ABA Opinions 251, 228 and 238-A.) (8-0.)