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.