1 / 26

Lawyers’ Electronic Advertising: Websites, Blogs, LinkedIn, etc.

Lawyers’ Electronic Advertising: Websites, Blogs, LinkedIn, etc. J. Nick Badgerow Spencer Fane LLP. Overview. OLD RULE: NO ADVERTISING MODERN RULE: REGULATED ADVERTISING FOCUS ON MODEL RULE 7.1: NOT FALSE OR MISLEADING NOT CREATE FALSE EXPECTATIONS ADVERSTISING AND SOCIAL MEDIA:

mastrangelo
Download Presentation

Lawyers’ Electronic Advertising: Websites, Blogs, LinkedIn, etc.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lawyers’ Electronic Advertising: Websites, Blogs, LinkedIn, etc. J. Nick Badgerow Spencer Fane LLP

  2. Overview • OLD RULE: NO ADVERTISING • MODERN RULE: REGULATED ADVERTISING • FOCUS ON MODEL RULE 7.1: • NOT FALSE OR MISLEADING • NOT CREATE FALSE EXPECTATIONS • ADVERSTISING AND SOCIAL MEDIA: • FACEBOOK, TWITTER, E-MAIL, BLOGS • LINKEDIN • AVVO • PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

  3. YE OLDE RULES • “LAWYERS DO NOT ADVERTISE” • IMPOLITE – VIOLATION OF ETIQUETTE • UNSEEMLY AND UNGENTLEMANLY • MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (1969 - 1988): • SHALL NOT PUBLICIZE HIMSELF THROUGH NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ADVERTISEMENTS, RADIO OR TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENTS, DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE CITY OR TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES • BIOGRAPHICAL AND OBJECTIVE INFO = OK

  4. BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA • 1977 – U.S. SUPREME COURT • STATE BAR RULE PROHIBITING LAWYER NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING = • UNCONSTITUTIONAL – FIRST AMENDMENT • STATE CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBIT AD • AD: LAWYER’S WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE “ROUTINE” LEGAL SERVICES AT SPECIFIED PRICES

  5. ZAUDERER V. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL – OHIO • 1985 – U.S. SUPREME COURT • PICTURE OF A DALKON SHIELD (I.U.D.) • CLIENTS COULD ASSERT CLAIMS • NOT PROHIBIT AD

  6. SHAPERO V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION • 1988 – U.S. SUPREME COURT • STATE COULD NOT BAN DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING BY LAWYERS • BAN ON DIRECT PERSONAL SOLICITATION STILL APPROPRIATE = • BECAUSE IT MIGHT INVOLVE FRAUD, UNDUE INFLUENCE, INTIMIDATION, OVERREACHING, VEXATIOUS CONDUCT

  7. THE TEST • PROHIBIT FALSE OR MISLEADING AD • SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST, E.G. PREVENT POTENTIAL ILLS OF IN-PERSON, DIRECT SOLICITATION • REGULATION MUST DIRECTLY ADVANCE STATE INTEREST • REGULATION MUST BE REASONABLE, NARROWLY DRAFTED

  8. MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT • M.R.P.C. = 49 STATES + VIRGIN ISLANDS AND D.C. • CALIFORNIA ALONE HAS NOT ADOPTED THE MODEL RULES. • KANSAS: RULES 7.1 – 7.5 • RULE 1.1: KEEP ABREAST OF BENFITS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY

  9. RULE 7.1 • NOT MAKE A FALSE OR MISLEADING COMMUNICATION = • NO MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT OR LAW • NOT CREATE UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS FOR RESULTS • NO UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPARISONS WITH THE SERVICES OF OTHER LAWYERS

  10. RULE 7.2 • MAY ADVERTISE ELECTRONICALLY • KEEP RECORDS OF ADVERTISING FOR TWO YEARS • NOT PAY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS • EXCEPT NON-PROFIT LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE • INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE LAWYER’S NAME IN AD

  11. RULE 7.3 • NO IN-PERSON, LIVE TELEPHONE, OR REAL-TIME ELECTRONIC SOLICITATION • UNLESS: • PERSON IS A LAWYER • FAMILY, CLOSE PERSONAL, OR PRIOR PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP • NO SOLICITATION EVEN IF NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED IF: • TARGET SAYS NO CONTACT OR • COERCION, DURESS, HARASSMENT • IF SOLICITING SOMEONE KNOWN TO NEED A LAWYER • “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” ON ENVELOPE + BEGINNING AND END • PREPAID OR GROUP LEGAL SERVICE PLAN IS OK

  12. RULE 7.4 • FIELDS OF PRACTICE COVERED OR EXCLUDED BY LAWYER • PATENT ATTORNEY • ADMIRALTY • NOT SAY “CERTIFIED” UNLESS: • ORGANIZATION APPROVED BY STATE BAR (NONE) OR ABA • NAME OF ORG. CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

  13. RULE 7.5 • FIRM NAME – OK IF NOT VIOLATE RULE 7.1 • TRADE NAME – NOT IMPLY GOV’T. CONNECTION • IDENTIFY STATES OF ADMISSION • NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN FIRM NAME IF LAWYER NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN PRACTICE • NOT IMPLY PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER ORG. IF NOT TRUE

  14. LAW FIRM WEBSITES • INTERNET ADVERTISING IS ADVERTISING • ABA OPINION 10-457 (2010) • WEBSITES NOT CONTAIN FALSE/MISLEADING INFORMATION • WATCH WEBSITE TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENCY • MAKE SURE THAT UNINTENTIONAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT FORMED

  15. OP. 10-457 REVIEWS RULES • RULE 7.1: NO FALSE OR MISLEADING COMMUNICATIONS • RULE 8.4(C): NO DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION • RULE 4.1: NO FALSE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT OR LAW TO A THIRD PERSON

  16. OP. 10-457 ALLOWS WEBSITE TO CONTAIN: • INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWYER. BIOGRAPHICAL & HISTORICAL • CLIENT INFORMATION (WITH INFORMED CONSENT). • INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAW. ACCURATE – NOT MATERIALLY MISLEADING • INTERACTIVE WEBSITES. DISCLAIMER = NO ATTY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED

  17. OP. 10-457 - GUIDANCE FOR WEBSITES • UPDATED – ON A REGULAR BASIS • ACCURATE AND CURRENT • DISCLAIMERS. • NOT CREATE UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS • NOT MISLEAD • NO ADVICE. SAY INFO. IS GENERAL IN NATURE – NOT ADVICE • NO ATTY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP (1) NO CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP; (2) INFORMATION WILL NOT BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; (3) NO LEGAL ADVICE HAS BEEN GIVEN; AND (4) LAWYER WILL NOT BE PREVENTED FROM REPRESENTING ADVERSE PARTY. • SEE RULE 1.18: PROSPECTIVE CLIENT COULD BE “CLIENT” – MAKE IT CLEAR

  18. LAWYER BLOGS • RULE 7.1 – NO FALSE OR MISLEADING COMMUNICATIONS • RULE 1.6 – CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY • RULE 3.6 – TRIAL PUBLICITY. SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF MATERIALLY PREJUDICING AN ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDING. • RULE 4.1 AND 8.4(B) – NO MISREPRESENTATION • RULE 4.4 – RESPECT FOR OTHERS. “NO SUBSTANTIAL PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO EMBARRASS, DELAY OR BURDEN A THIRD PERSON.” • RULE 7.2 – IDENTIFICATION. IDENTIFY THE LAWYER BY NAME AND OFFICE ADDRESS. KEEP COPIES TWO YEARS • RULE 7.3 – NOT SOLICIT. INTERACTIVE BLOGS SHOULD AVOID CREATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP (OR APPEARANCE OF RELATIONSHIP) BETWEEN THE LAWYER AND OTHER POSTERS. • RULES 5.1 & 5.3 – RESPONSIBILITY OF FIRM FOR LAWYER AND NON-LAWYER EMPLOYEES

  19. FACEBOOK, TWITTER, E-MAIL, OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA • RULE 7.3(B): NOT SOLICIT PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT BY REAL-TIME ELECTRONIC CONTACT IF: • TARGET SAYS NO – OR - • COERCION, DURESS OR HARASSMENT • ISSUE: HOW EASILY CAN PROSPECTIVE CLIENT IGNORE THE SOLICITATION? • (A) SOLICITATION IN REAL-TIME CHAT ROOM = PROHIBITED • TWEETS, POP-UP CHATS ON A FIRM WEBSITE, E-MAILS, REQUESTS FOR A “LIKE” ON FACEBOOK CAN BE IGNORED = PERMITTED.

  20. LINKEDIN • REGISTER PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY • PHOTOGRAPH • EDUCATION • EMPLOYMENT • HONORS AND AWARDS • LINKS TO ARTICLES, BLOGS • AREAS OF PRACTICE. • CONNECT WITH OTHER MEMBERS (500,000,000) • RECOMMENDATIONS • ENDORSEMENT

  21. LINKEDIN: RISKS AND RULES • FALSE SPECIALIZATION? 7.4(A): NOT STATE/IMPLY CERTIFIED AS SPECIALIST UNLESS ACTUALLY CERTIFIED • HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE? EXPERT OR SPECIALIST, HIGHER THAN ORDINARY LAWYER • CLIENT CONFIDENCES? CLIENT DISCLOSURE VIA RECOMMENDATION? • FALSE ADVERTISING? ENDORSEMENT WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE • IS THAT A “COMMUNICATION” BY THE LAWYER? • 7.1(C): NOT CREATE UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATION • LAWYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS / ENDORSEMENTS/ RATINGS GIVEN TO LAWYER ON A THIRD-PARTY WEBSITE, E.G. LINKEDIN • DO NOT ACCEPT RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT FOUNDATION • PAYING FOR ADVERTISING? RULE 7.2(C) – NOT PAY FOR ENDORSEMENT, OR AGREE TO MUTUAL ENDORSEMENTS (VALUE)

  22. LINKEDIN: PRACTICAL STEPS • MEMBER = CONTROL YOUR PROFILE • CAN TURN OFF OPTION WHICH ADDS ENDORSEMENTS – OR – • WATCH YOUR PROFILE. KEEP IT ACCURATE, CURRENT, NOT IMPLY SPECIALIZATION • WATCH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ADD ENDORSEMENT ONLY IF: • ACCURATE AND NOT MISLEADING • NOT CONTAIN PRIVILEGED, WORK PRODUCT, OR CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION • NOT CREATE FALSE AND UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS • WATCH YOUR ENDORSEMENTS. REVIEW THEM • AREA IN WHICH YOU ACTUALLY PRACTICE • DELETE ANY = NOT ACCURATE • NEW YORK ETHICS OPINION = ETHICAL DUTY TO MONITOR AND CONTROL UNJUSTIFIED ENDORSEMENTS

  23. AVVO & OTHER REFERRAL SOURCES • AVVO = WEBSITE REFERRAL SOURCE • “NEARLY EVERY LICENSED LAWYER IN THE U.S.” = 97% • = 1.276,094 LAWYERS • PROFILES, REVIEWS, AVVO RATING • ON-CALL SERVICE = IMMEDIATE LEGAL ADVICE = PAY $39 • $8 BILLION IN REVENUE TO LAWYERS ANNUALLY • 650,000 CONTACTS EACH MONTH • 11.3 MILLION SEARCHABLE QUESTIONS • CONTRACTS WITH LAWYERS: • AVVO COLLECTS FROM CLIENT • AVVO PAYS LAWYER • AVVO TAKES ITS PERCENTAGE SHARE (“MARKETING FEE”) • CONTINGENT ON COLLECTING FROM CLIENT

  24. IS AVVO LEGAL? • NEW JERSEY JOINT OPINION 44 (JUNE 21, 2017) • RULE 5.4: NOT SHARE LEGAL FEES WITH A NONLAWYER • RULE 7.3(D): PERMITS PREPAID OR GROUP LEGAL SERVICE PLANS, BUT ONLY TO SOLICIT MEMBERSHIPS OR SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM PERSONS WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO NEED LEGAL SERVICES • AVVO CHARGES AND COLLECTS FROM ATTORNEY UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE LAWYER AND PAYMENT BY THE CLIENT • AVVO “REFERRAL FEES” VARY BY SERVICE RENDERED • RULE 7.2(C): NOT GIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE TO A PERSON FOR RECOMMENDING THE LAWYER'S SERVICES EXCEPT NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE • S. CAROLINA; PENN.; N.Y.; OHIO; N.J.; UTAH = ALL SAY NO • LEGALZOOM AND ROCKET LAWYER= DO NOT CHARGE SHARED FEES DISGUISED AS MARKETING FEES = OK

  25. CONCLUSION • KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY • KEEP IT ACCURATE, UPDATED • NOT PROMISE OR IMPLY RESULTS • NOT CREATE ATTY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP • NOT PAY FOR REFERRALS

  26. Lawyers’ Electronic Advertising: Websites, Blogs, LinkedIn, etc. J. Nick Badgerow Spencer Fane LLP

More Related