The Florida Bar

Ethics Opinion

Opinion 71-31

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 71-31
August 20, 1971
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A newspaper column to be written by members of a legal aid society, which examines various
legal problems and encourages readers to consult a lawyer about their own legal problems, is
proper.
CPR:
Integration Rule:

EC 2-1, 2-3, 2-5
Art. XIV

Committeeman Gregory stated the opinion of the committee:
Members of a Legal Aid Society have requested the advice of the Committee
with respect to a newspaper column which the Society proposes to run
periodically in local newspapers. We are advised that the authors of the articles
will not be named, although at the conclusion of the prototype article submitted,
the public is generally urged to contact an attorney as soon as any problem
develops and those persons who feel they are financially unable to procure the
services of a private attorney are given the name and address of the Legal Aid
Society.
The prototype article submitted to the Committee presents a statement of facts involving
an area of landlord-tenant law affecting Tom Tenant and his landlord, Larry Landlord. The
discussion of the legal implications of the factual situation is general in its content but concludes
with an indication of the proper determination of the problem presented.
The prototype article contains the following language, which the Committee is advised
will be included in any future articles prepared and published:
It should be understood by the reader of this article that the foregoing
illustration is subject to different interpretations in each particular case that may
arise and no one reading this article should attempt to apply his own particular
situation to the principles described herein.
The Code of Professional Responsibility at EC 2-1 states that one of the “important
functions of the legal profession” is “to educate laymen to recognize their legal problems.” The
activity of the Legal Aid Society here involved is not for the purpose of affording personal
benefit, publicity or causing litigation to be brought for harassment purposes as is deemed
improper in EC 2-3, but to the contrary is obviously motivated by a desire to protect “one who
does not recognize that he may have legal problems or who is ignorant of his legal rights and
obligations.” The caveat quoted above satisfies the limitations imposed by EC 2-5. The
committee concludes that the publications in the form proposed are eminently proper.