*1 Wisconsin, the committee’s convenience Bar of at State committee’s interrogation respond request, filed with of the original complaint respect investigation griev- Mr. Kennedy, pursuant committee against Bar. State the rules of the prescribed ance procedure Plaintiff, Willenson, Defendant. v. State, 1, 1963.
September 3 October *2 For the there plaintiff was а brief and oral argument by Monroe, Rudolph P. Reges of counsel for the Board of State Bar Commissioners. Willenson, L. A. was a brief there
For defendant Arnold, both of L. se, by Henry oral argument pro Milwaukee. main- defendant attorney appears
Per Curiam. law, in window of an office for tains the practice adjacent and in an name “Lawyеr,” which appears Tax.” a neon “Income window whether raises the question count demurrer first “Income Tax” the window use of a neon sign conduct. office law wife, conceded that defendant’s The second count alleges income-tax business conducts lawyer, *3 in has an “interest” income-tax Defendant lawyer office. take business, it nоr pro- but does apparently supervise is not claimed for the work done. It fessional responsibility a exceeds the limitations within which that defendant’s wife income- patrons assist nonlawyer may properly preparing returns, is claimed it would unlawful for nor it be if in a her business were carried on sep- her to advertise count, demurrer, aratе location. raises the ques- tion it is conduct for a lawyer whether unprofessional on an a solicit patronage carry layman permit business within the lawyer’s income-tax otherwise legitimate office.
As to Count I. a con- by lawyer unprofessional Solicitation duct.1 narrow limited very With exceptions, largely 1 Canon of the Canons of Professional 27 Ethics American Association, adopted Bar as a standard the court in Rule 9 Rules; 524, (1929), State v. 222 State 197 Wis. Kiefer 795; 264, (1953), re 1 (2d) N. W. In Veach Ill. 115 N. E. (2d) 257.
522 office,
simple identification the use of proper letterheads, cards and proper listing directories, form is deemed solicitation advertising any business, and conduct.2 a neon
Surely attention a law office as calling a a where place particular of service available is ad- type vertising which would deemed unprofessional. Defendant out that points people who are neither account- ants nor lawyers do in the engage business of as- furnishing sistance in income-tax out returns. filling Within narrow limits such service not be the may law and bemay rendered by laymen.3 if, Defendant argues fact, a lawyer performs service only within those nar- limits, is, extent, row to that in a engaging business which ishe free to advertise.
We consider the argument untenable. One who seeks assistance from a what lawyer appears to him the simplest sort of income-tax problem right to have the lawyer to all рrofessional live standards in up such as- furnishing sistance. If the lawyer recognizes legal problem not ap- client, to the parent is bound to advise him it. It would be concerning impossible to draw a line between 2 27, supra, re In Canon Neuman App. footnote (1915), 638, 428; Supp. Div. 155 N. Y. 1055, Anno. 39 A. L. (2d) R. 1057; State rel. ex Hunter v. Crocker (1937), 132 Neb. 444; In re Schwarz N. W. (1916), App. Div. 161 N. Y. *4 1079; Libarian State Bar Supp. v. (1943), 862, 21 (2d) Cal. 136 321; County (2d) Pac. Grievance Comm. v. Cole (1960), Hartford 86, Supp. (2d) 22 Conn. 161 Atl. 590. preparation by “. . layman . The a of tax returns on income principally wages salary derived from or has been held not to con practice stitute the of (2d), Attorneys law. ...” 7 Am. at Jur. Law, p. Consequently, . sec. 79. “. . the courts hold that . . » preparation returns], self-assessing especiаlly tax [of those of the sort, simpler open laity.” is the L. R. (2d) Anno. A. 801. income-tax service when and professional nonprofessional a rendered by lawyer.4 a
Furthermore, the potentiality business will other legal as a channel which through work is The income-tax client to the same obvious. lawyer come who lawyer to take other likely legаl problems very returns, and after death family tax his his has prepared To to that lawyer probate. take his estate will probably extent, difference between there would be little permit- this income-tax service and to advertise his lawyer per- ting his services generally. him advertise mitting an of California said response court supreme similаr to defendant’s: argument as should choose to continue a practi-
“If the petitioner state, he at the of this must with comply bar tioner He should legal profession. appreciate standards law, as an at practice attorney he is licensed to when by that he thus performs performed services professional or not оf the services attorney, him as whether some in a be rendered one licensed different profes- could also licensed as an practice One who is sion. standards in must conform to whatever
state v. matter. acting (Jacobs may particular capacity 4 “Where, however, occupation, although theoretically the sеcond distinct, law, closely is one related to the professedly essentially normally the solution of what are involves and one that, it, conducting problems, is inevitable it where, technically, if with situations at least confronted bewill Canons, spirit particularly he will violate the in substance advertising and solicitation. The of this precluding likelihood whiсh, collateral business is one when greatest when the en is the law, lawyer, by a constitutes the when gaged apparently Thus from his law office. there is no doubt conducted office, conducting, from impropriety sup the same to the independent agent, business of stock posedly distinct and collection adjusters bureau, broker, consultant, рlanning, insurance estate service; Drinker, Ethics, Legal p. .” mortgage . . *5 524 Bar, State 219 Cal. Pac. As prac 59 a (2d) 401].) [25 he nor not solicit
ticing attorney, may may employment 5 contrary advertise to the rules.” of Committee on Professional Although opinions Association, Ethics and in- Grievances the American Ethics, the Canons are not on this terpreting binding cоurt, are to serious entitled consideration. That com- mittee said:
“It is for an necessarily engage improper in a business; but arises when the business is of impropriety such a nature is a conducted such manner as to inconsistent with the Such an duties as a member of Bar. arises when the inconsistency will lend itself as a readily means for procuring him, such it сan employment be used as a cloak for behalf, that, indirect solicitation on or is of a if nature aby handled lawyer, would be as the regarded law. To avoid such inconsistencies it is desirable and always usually necessary that business in lawyer keep any he is engaged entirely separate and from his apart must, event, the law and he in any conduct it with due observance standards of conduct of him required as a lawyer.
“. .. The fact that a can layman render certain lawfully service does not mean necessarily that it pro- would not be fessional service when aby lawyer. rendered On the con- trary, lawyers called frequently upon to render such service for the very reason that it can be better rendered by 6 lawyer.”
The Committee on Professional Ethics of the State Bar of Wisconsin has said : “There is nothing unethical in the en- practice of in an
gaging occupation entirely distinct from and unrelated Bar, supra, Libarian p. v. State footnote 6 Opinion 57 of the No. Committee on Professional Ethics and Assoсiation, Grievances the American Bar dated March *6 in no uses way that he provided his law to ‘feed’his law practice. to advertise or occupation anof “However, the businesses a definite rule that in- and adjustment advertised agency, collecting advertised income service, as advertised as well or claims vestigation fоr law services, feeders inherently practice, are so tax no connection have may and offices his interests a lawyer, either. with whatsoever businesses, other nonlegal engaging independent “As to para- forth in the foregoing as set the three prohibited than the conform to very carefully ethical should an graph, standards: fоllowing clearly business should be nonlegal
“1. The independent the legal practice. from separated totally the Letterheads, all advertising independ- cards and “2. the or inference to no reference must contain ent business nor as to services. attorney, as an of the individual status have the independent is desirable that “3. but if that from lеgal practice, locations wholly separate be made clear should as distinction the physical is impossible permit. circumstances as the and definite and other be wholly separate telephone “4. There must telephones as as wholly separate well listings, directory numbers. telephone other business must be wholly seрarate of the
“5. Signs seem ‘feeder’ it would unethical possibility, and to avoid or ‘other’ sign have a flashy gaudy inappropriate grossly shingle. a modest next committee this field is that the
“The conclusion being is licensed to profession who person business, if law, his other decide whether must at in accord with the ethics of profession, necessary, that is as lawyer.” privileges surrender claims that it is interest to further public Defendant cities, to use large signs lawyers, particularly permit returns, be- that they prepare the public inform informed that cause, sufficiently is not says, 1960), p. (June, Bar Bulletin 33 Wisconsin render such many lawyers service and cannot tell readily do and which do We claim. lawyers rejeсt not. If do not realize that income- many people make out lawyers returns, and if some inconvenienced by going service, who do not render this we lawyers ordinarily con- sider that such can better be solved information problems by on carried than by organizations programs by solicitation of work individual lawyers.
All members court agree thаt defendant’s use of a neon I described Count unprofessional conduct.
As Count to II. As we understand the facts the office in alleged, question to be the office of defendant appears lawyer. Within it carries on law and practice, his wife carries her on sep- arate business of nonprofessional income-tax re- preparing turns. There is no claim that there is any physical separation offices, two into for the defendant’s law and practice of business, for the income-tax the other nor of other ar- any make which would it clear to members of the rangement that when with defendant’s dealing wife are not for receiving services which defendant re- prоfessionally sponsible. deem it
We conduct for a to par- in such an arrangement. ticipate The on Committee Professional Ethics and Grievances of American Bar Association has said an opinion: “In instances the many out’ of proper 'making income tax returns will directly involve rendition of services. quite Lawyers practice generally, employment, law, render tax income service to their clients. name, The style of Tax ‘Income Service’ under association here involved proposes advertise and solicit contains no its that service is suggestion limited non- This, legal phases tax returns. preparing taken in con- nection with the use of the lawyer’s offiсe as that of the
CM lO association, would in the association becom- inevitably result feeder The law- to the law ing soliciting lawyer’s practice. become the of such solicitation beneficiary would thus yer and violate Canon 27.” advertising. would The Ethics Committee of the State of Wisconsin made the statement: following re-
“The committeе continues to receive and complaints shingles window quests opinions concerning signs, other office signs. dignified
“A window lawyer may sign, shingle display his office. should not be or door sign designate gaudy must neon or other signs bad taste. There be no illuminated A black or lettered is the lettering. gold A advertise a collection not customary usage. lawyer may inсome service or claims service. Lawyers may agency, share with them who office to use permit laymen space window matter which would be signs display prohibited One or two instances have been that a attorney. reported tax return shares with an lay preparer space a neon or red and white the window displays printed sign same suite of offices which the lawyer occupies. has held this is committee All improper. advertising office windows conform to stand- must proper ards.” We are aware there are circumstances where it is *8 for to share office economically advantageous lawyer space, and clerical other items of with some other help, expense enterprise. make such an the chooses to lawyer arrangement,
Where him burden is on it so that it will be obvious the arrange that the law office and the other are enterprise for of and the except sharing space totally independent, must be clear that of the It other patrons other expense. 8 Opinion No. 234 of the. Committee on Professional Ethics and Association, February of the American dated Grievances 1942. (February, 1962), p. Bar Bulletin Wisconsin are not with the
enterprise dealing that he is not lawyer, receive, for the services responsible and if they they require work as incident of the do with they other it must clear as free enterprise, they or consult to consult the as are to consult not to consult other any lawyer.
Defendant’s maintenance of a neon in the window of sign his law office as I Count and his his alleged sharing service, II, office with an income-tax in Count alleged constitute subject conduct and him disci- Disbarment, aor substantial pline. period suspension would be warranted in ordinarily view of his refusal to remove Plaintiff sign upon request. conceded oral however, that this of violation argument, type frequent the area where defendant counsel informed practices, that the us has been removed while sign was proceeding pending. to be the nature proceeding appears of a “test” case and our decision will bring impropriety to the notice of other offenders. Under these costs, circumstances we deem a reprimand, payment not to exceed to be $200, sufficient discipline. ordered and adjudged, the defendant be repri-
manded for his conduct a neon maintaining sign saying window, “Income Tax” in his officе and in permitting tax service over which he nonprofessional no maintained office, control be carried on within supervisory his law and that he costs and pay the of these expenses proceedings, the fees and disbursements of the including but not to exceed plaintiff, $200. I (dissenting part). agree with
Dieterich, J. conclusions as to the majority’s of the neon impropriety window, in defendant’s office and also with the imposition I of costs under Count However, complaint. I must dissent from that respectfully portion the per curiam *9 for an conduct which holds that it is opinion unprofessional carried service to be to allow a income-tax attorney separate from his on оffice. for an it curiam deems per opinion unprofessional ex- to share office clerical and other
attorney space, help, first things with another without arranging penses enterprise know that the law office and the other so that will has the effect of are independent. enterprise totally attorney and unethical for making young from, facilities, share office an offer his father to say, accept clerical and other items of unless the father is help, expense I cannot with such a determination. lawyer. agree If the burden on so that arrange things will be obvious why independence general public, is it not incumbent such an arrange- upon challеnging ment at least to that the law allege practice separate are, fact, Aside from an enterprise independent? of the neon Count allegation pertaining presence sign, II of the in the instant action complaint alleges only defendant’s wife conducts an business in defend- ant’s office and that defendant spacе has some undefined interest therein. There is no that the two are not allegation Indeed, the independent. majority characterizes the wife’s income-tax service as a business.” “separate
This court has deemed it to allow proper real-estate bro- kers to law “a little bit” because have simply been so for a number of doing years.1 from apparent curiam per instant case opinion lawyers now from office prohibited with sharing space certain lay unless certain and undefined people vague standards are met. I cannot concur in the of such imposition restrictions of law. Reynolds Dinger State ex rel. (1961), v. (2d) Wis. Currie, Hallows, (2d) Dieterich, 109 N. W. in which JJ., dissented.