The following opinion was handed down by the Florida Supreme Court July 5, 1974.
There is no impropriety in sending a letter under a firm’s letterhead in the following situations: to other attorneys praising a counseling service the firm does not represent and has no interest in; recommending a candidate for public office if the letter is sent only to those having a legitimate interest in the attorney’s personal view; soliciting charitable contributions from fellow attorneys; or to fellow attorneys recommending an attorney in a particular specialty, so long as the attorney has a personal relationship with those to whom the letter is sent.
Vice Chairman Sullivan stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar has circulated a letter written on his firm’s letterhead praising a counseling service in his area. The firm does not represent the counseling service and has no interest in it except that the counseling service is a tenant in the firm’s office building where it pays rent for the space it occupies identically proportional to that other tenants pay for the space they occupy.
The letter was sent only to other attorneys, all of whom were personal acquaintances of the sender, and he sent it to them because he believed that the attorneys to whom he sent the letter would be interested in knowing about the service, the only one of its kind in his area.
1. He asks for our opinion about the propriety of his sending the letter on the firm letterhead.
A majority of the Committee, two members dissenting, is of the opinion that there was no impropriety in sending the letter under the circumstances set forth above. The letter was sent to fellow attorneys who were personal acquaintances and whom the sender thought needed or would be interested in the service.
Two members of the Committee are of the opinion that the letter smacks of commercialism and should be sent, if at all, only on the attorney’s individual stationery.
The attorney also asks:
2. Whether he may use his firm letterhead for personal correspondence sent to people in a professional capacity recommending a particular candidate for public office.
3. Whether he may use his firm letterhead for correspondence directed to fellow attorneys soliciting contributions for a charity.
4. Whether he may use his firm letterhead for correspondence directed to fellow attorneys recommending another attorney in a particular specialty.
A majority of the Committee answers the second question in the affirmative subject to the qualifications of Opinion 70-2 (since withdrawn). There we stated that it would be preferable to use personal stationery but that it was not impermissible to send such a letter on office letterhead so long as there was no widespread distribution to persons who, by lack of any established relationship, would have no legitimate interest in knowing about his personal view and absent any intent to publicize himself and any representation of expertise qualifying the sender to endorse persons for public office.
A majority of the Committee answers the third question in the affirmative and adheres to Opinion 73-11, where we said it was not improper to send such a letter provided the letter is not intended to and does not publicize the attorney or his professional skill and experience.
A majority of the Committee answers the fourth question in the affirmative, subject to the same general qualifications as those in our answer to the first question - that distribution of the letter be limited to attorneys with whom the sender has a personal relationship and who the sender thinks would have a need for or an interest in receiving the information and recommendation.