Legal ethics rulings may limit use of social networking sites
Doug Cornelius points out that ethics opinions in two states may limit what lawyers can do in social media and social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn or LawLink.
A Nebraska opinion (pdf) says a lawyer may advertise in internet-based lawyer directory if, among other things, 'no recommendation is made as to a particular lawyer.' An Oregon opinion (pdf) goes so far as to say a 'Lawyer is responsible for content that Lawyer did not create to the extent that Lawyer knows about that content.'
Following this logic, Doug believes lawyers need to monitor what is being said about them in social networking/social media sites to make sure that there are no endorsements or recommendations of their legal services.
Sounds archaic not to allow consumers of legal services to comment on the service of a lawyer they may have used. But I'm not sure legal ethics rules on advertising ever had the public's interest in mind.
These opinions also fly in the face of services like AVVO, a lawyer ratings website, and Martindale-Hubbell, which is now offering client reviews of their attorneys.
A strict conservative interpretation of legal ethics rules so as to hide the ball from consumers of legal services is misguided. Why shouldn't the public have at least the same right to consumer feedback when selecting a lawyer as they would have when buying a new dishwasher? We're all going online looking for reviews when selecting a service or product. Let's move the process of selecting a lawyer into this century.
A bigger concern, I think, are those attorney search sites where lawyers pay to be listed, but then are saddled with the ethics of those that create the content and do the marketing. I happened to have written on that a couple weeks ago:
The Ethics of Attorney Search Services
It looks like the concern of the Nebraska and Oregon bars is how to deal with legal directories that recommend a particular lawyer, as such situations are akin to lawyer referral services - something typically only the bars can engage in.
I wouldn't expect this to apply to the client and peer recommendations found on Avvo and other sites (and unlike the directories in question in NE and OR, Avvo lawyer profiles are free), but these decisions highlight the difficulties the bars are having reconciling advertising rules with the pace of things on the internet.
And of course, as you point out, Kevin, the guidance for the bars when it comes to attorney advertising should ALWAYS be that which maximizes the interests of legal consumers.
Josh King
VP, Business Dev & General Counsel
Avvo, Inc.
Kevin - Thanks for your thoughtful post about legal client reviews. We couldn't agree more with your sentiment that the people who purchase legal services - be they consumers or corporate counsels - should be able to provide feedback, and access others' feedback, about the services they received. That's exactly why we decided to move forward with the new Client Review feature on Martindale.com. It's a recognition that technology, and particularly Web 2.0/CGM, is changing the practice and business of the law - and there's no way anyone can turn back the clock.
It's also why we're undertaking some pretty major changes in the way we do things at Martindale-Hubbell, which you can read more about here.
We hope you'll follow our progress.
Sharon Lubrano
Vice President, Martindale-Hubbell