ETHICS OPINION 276-1930

ETHICS OPINION 276

NUMBER 276 1930

Question. I. In the opinion of the Committee, is it proper for an attorney who is actively engaged in the practice of the law likewise to engage as a principal in the business of regularly supplying those who may be interested, with mortgage or other real estate information, and in connection with such business, to solicit subscriptions to the regular information service which such business would supply?

2. Would it make any difference whether such business were conducted at an office wholly separate and apart from the law office?

3. Would it make any difference if the lawyer were merely a stockholder and officer of a corporation engaging in such business but personally had nothing to do with the solicitation of any accounts?

Answer. The Committee has already given the following answer in Opinion 273, which it deems applicable to the present question:

[Here is quoted the entire answer of Opinion 273.]

Accordingly, the Committee is of the opinion in respect to the specific inquiries as follows:

1. That there is no impropriety in the practice, provided it is not used as a cover for soliciting professional employment for the attorney.

2. That it is important that the business should be conducted distinct and apart from the law practice, for, unless it is so conducted, it may easily lead to the inference, irrespective of the intention of the lawyer, that the business is a cover for soliciting his professional employment.

 

3. It makes no difference whether the lawyer is a stockholder and officer of the corporation.