Category Archives: Lawyer advertising Linkedin.com

California Ethics Opinion reviews advertising restrictions on lawyers when posting and commenting on Facebook and other social media websites

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the 2012 California Formal Ethics Opinion which addresses a lawyer’s obligations when posting on Facebook and other social media websites.  The opinion is Cal. Formal Op. 2012-186 (12/21/12).  The ethics opinion is here: http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/9/documents/Opinions/CAL%202012-186%20%2812-21-12%29.pdf

The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued a formal ethics opinion with guidelines and ethical restrictions on California attorneys when using social media.  The opinion states that Facebook and other social media advertising is subject to the same Bar Rules as traditional forms of advertising and under those rules, false and misleading advertising is prohibited.  The opinion also states that the determination of whether the comment is a communication subject to the California Bar Rules is whether it is a message or offer “concerning the availability for professional employment”. 

The opinion reviewed and analyzed the following hypothetical facts and comments:

“Attorney has a personal profile page on a social media website. Attorney regularly posts comments about both her personal life and professional practice on her personal profile page. Only individuals whom the Attorney has approved to view her personal page may view this content (in Facebook parlance, whom she has “friended”).  Attorney has about 500 approved contacts or “friends,” who are a mix of personal and professional acquaintances, including some persons whom Attorney does not even know.

In the past month, Attorney has posted the following remarks on her profile page:

1.         ‘Case finally over. Unanimous verdict! Celebrating tonight.’

2.         ‘Another great victory in court today! My client is delighted. Who wants to be next?’

3.         ‘Won a million dollar verdict. Tell your friends and check out my website.’

4.         ‘Won another personal injury case. Call me for a free consultation.’

5.         ‘Just published an article on wage and hour breaks. Let me know if you would like a copy.’

The opinion concludes that comments 1 and 5 would not be a communication “concerning the availability for professional employment” subject to the California Bar Rules; however, comments 2, 3, and 4 would be communications subject to the Bar Rules.  The opinion also states, in a footnote, that the conclusions in the opinion are not limited to Facebook and would include Twitter, social media and other websites.

Bottom line:  As I have said many times in the past, state Bar Ethics Opinions are not binding and are intended only to provide guidance to lawyers; however, this opinion gives a good overview of the requirements of the California Bar Rules when a lawyer posts on social media and other websites.  The California Bar Rules state that the advertising rules apply to communications “concerning the availability of employment”.  The analysis and conclusions in this opinion would arguably apply to lawyers in other states which have the same or similar language, for example, Rule 4-7.11(a) of The Florida’s Bar advertising rules state that: (t)he terms “advertising” and “advertisement” as used in (the Florida Bar rules) refer to all forms of communication seeking legal employment, both written and spoken.”

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising Linkedin.com, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer advertising twitter, lawyer blogs, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics opinions Linkedin.com, Lawyers and social media, Lawyers and social media youtube

South Carolina ethics advisory opinion states that lawyers are responsible for insuring that claimed third party website profiles and content comply with Bar Rules

Hello and welcome to this Friday the 13th edition of the Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the South Carolina ethics advisory opinion which states that lawyers who claim their profile on third party websites such as Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers, LinkedIn, Avvo and who solicit peer ratings are responsible for insuring that the content complies with that state’s Bar Rules.  The ethics opinion is South Carolina Ethics Advisory Opinion 09-10 and the 2009 opinion is online here: http://www.scbar.org/MemberResources/EthicsAdvisoryOpinions/OpinionView/ArticleId/107/Ethics-Advisory-Opinion-09-10.aspx

The ethics advisory opinion provides a comprehensive discussion of lawyers’ responsibilities regarding business advertising and networking websites such as Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers, LinkedIn, Avvo, and other such websites under South Carolina Bar Rules, which are similar to many other state Bar Rules, including Florida.  According to the opinion, “(i)nformation on (these) business advertising and networking websites are both communications and advertisements; therefore, they are governed by (South Carolina Bar) Rules 7.1 and 7.2.  While mere participation in these websites is not unethical, all content in a claimed listing must conform to the detailed requirements of Rule 7.2(b)-(i) and must not be false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair.”

The opinion also states that “(s)oliciting peer ratings does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Martindale-Hubbell has employed a lawyer rating system for more than 100 years, and federal courts have held that advertising factual information about such verifiable, independent ratings does not violate state advertising prohibitions against statements likely to mislead or create unjustified expectations about results.  See, e.g., Mason v. Florida Bar, 208 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 2000).  More recently, advertisements about newer ratings organizations, such as SuperLawyers, have been given the same regulatory berth by state agencies.  See, e.g., In re Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, 961 A.2d 722 (N.J. 2008)(per curiam)(vacating the court’s own committee’s 2006 advisory opinion prohibiting advertising of “SuperLawyers” and “Best Lawyers in America” designations, on the grounds that the prohibition is likely unconstitutional because such designations are factually verifiable). Therefore, provided that the rating is presented in a non-misleading way and is independently verifiable, including one’s rating in an online listing or elsewhere appears permissible.”

“Lawyers soliciting client comments on web-based business listings are also cautioned to adhere to Rule 8.4(a), which prohibits lawyers from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct through the acts of another. Even absent a specific prohibition against testimonials, several states have concluded that client comments contained in lawyer advertising violate the prohibition against misleading communications if the comments include comparative language such as “the best” or statements about results obtained. See, e.g., Virginia State Bar Lawyer Advertising Opinion A-0113 (2000). Rule 7.1(c) prohibits comparative language in all communications, Rule 7.1(b) prohibits statements that are likely to create unjust expectations about results, and Rule 7.2(f) prohibits self-laudatory language in advertisements. Therefore, a lawyer should monitor a ‘claimed’ listing to keep all comments in conformity with the Rules.  If any part of the listing cannot be conformed to the Rules (e.g., if an improper comment cannot be removed), the lawyer should remove his or her entire listing and discontinue participation in the service.

Bottom line:  As I have said previously, state Bar ethics opinions are not binding on lawyers; however, this ethics opinion is useful for guidance since it addresses many of the issues related to lawyers’ participation in business advertising and networking websites such as Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers, LinkedIn, Avvo.  The opinion concludes that, although a lawyer’s participation in such websites is ethical, the lawyer is required to insure that the content and communications are in compliance with that state’s Bar Rules and the lawyer should monitor a claimed listing to make sure that all comments comply with the Bar Rules.  Florida lawyers should also keep in mind that the recent Florida advertising rule revisions state that the advertising rules apply to “all forms of communication in any print or electronic forum, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, brochures, flyers, television, radio, direct mail, electronic mail, and Internet, including banners, pop-ups, websites, social networking, and video sharing media.” 

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Florida comprehensive advertising rule revisions, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising Linkedin.com, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics opinions Linkedin.com, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin, Lawyers and social media

New York Ethics Opinion states that law firms are prohibited from listing areas of practice in the “Specialties” section of Linkedin.com

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent New York ethics opinion which addresses the ethics issues surrounding the use of Linkedin.com to describe the areas of practice of lawyers and law firms.  The ethics opinion is New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 972 (6/26/13).  The opinion is also online here: http://www.nysba.org/Content/ContentFolders/EthicsOpinions/Opinions901975/EO_972.pdf.

According to the ethics opinion, law firms are prohibited from listing the firm’s services in a section of LinkedIn listed as “Specialties” since New York Bar Rules only permit individual lawyers to state that they have been certified as specialists.  A law firm is allowed to identify areas of its law practice; however, listing ” those areas under a heading of ‘Specialties,’ would constitute a claim that the lawyer or law firm ‘is a specialist or specializes in a particular field of law” and only individual lawyers are permitted to be certified in New York

Bottom line: this New York ethics opinion states that law firms may not list their services under the heading “Specialties” on Linkedin (and other social media websites) and individual lawyer are permitted to list their services under that heading only if the lawyer is certified as required under the New York Bar Rules.  Since most, if not all, other jurisdictions have similar rules, I would anticipate that Florida and other jurisdictions examine this subject will agree with this analysis.      

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising Linkedin.com, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions Linkedin.com