This piece on Law.com is actually quite interesting and we’d suggest pertains information of use to anybody practicing law and trying to understand how to use www to develop a firm’s brand and image ethically.
?
The report can be found at
The ABA’s Commission on Ethics 20/20 caused a minor stir last fall when it launched a study into the ethics of online client development tools including Facebook.
The Commission on June 29 released its conclusions, and they are hardly drastic. Rather than develop a new set of rules pertaining specifically to online advertising, the commission recommended several relatively minor clarifications to the existing rules.
The point was to offer attorneys more guidance about their ethical responsibilities when it comes to online client development, according to the report submitted by the commission, which is chaired by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Jamie Gorelick.
The commission’s Technology Working Group looked at recent surveys of how lawyers use technology, examined marketing Web sites, reviewed litigation and disciplinary proceedings involving online client development, and considered suggestions by other ABA sections.
“As a result of these efforts, the commission concluded that no new restrictions on lawyer advertising are required,” the panel wrote. “For example, the commission concluded that Rule 7.1’s prohibition against false and misleading communications is readily applicable to online advertising and other forms of electronic communications that are used to attract new clients.”
The relatively small scale of the proposed changes has helped ease the concerns that surfaced among legal marketers in October when the review was announced. Some marketers feared that the inquiry would lead to onerous restrictions, while others applauded the possibility that the ABA would clear up unanswered questions about what is permissible online.
Massachusetts lawyer Robert Ambrogi said that the proposals strike a “sensible balance” between the need to regulate lawyer advertising and lawyers’ ability to use technology to educate consumers.
The Legal Marketing Association, which as been closely tracking the proposal, also praised the suggested changes. Notably, the association supports the decision not to further restrict online advertising, said Kim Perret, chairwoman of the association’s task force on the matter.
“We applaud the commission for its thoughtful consideration and restraint on this issue, as we know that some alarmists had called for tighter regulation of lawyers’ use of technology to communicate about their services,” Perret said.
The commission recommended three modifications to the model rules on advertising and ethics.
? Rule 1.18, which pertains to an attorney’s responsibility to perspective clients, would be modified to clarify when electronic communications give rise to a client-lawyer relationship. The changes are intended to help attorneys avoid unintended client-lawyer relationships. For example, the proposal replaces the word “discusses” with “communicates” to reflect the changing way that attorneys and potential clients interact.
? Rule 7.2, which pertains to advertising, would be modified to make clear that the prohibition against paying others to recommend an attorney’s services remains in place, and that online lead generators such as pay-per-click services do not violate that prohibition.
? Rule 7.3, which pertains to direct contact with perspective clients, would offer a new definition of a client solicitation. The existing rule prohibits most kinds of in-person, live telephone and real-time electronic solicitations while allowing most direct mail and e-mail solicitations. The new language would clarify that a solicitation happens when an attorney “offers to provide, or can be reasonably understood to be offering to provide, legal services to a specific potential client.” The proposed change clarifies that lawyer advertisements that come up in Internet searches are not solicitations.
The commission is preparing an informal report on the constitutional limitations on lawyer advertising rules in regard to the Internet. That effort will look at individual state rules governing online lawyer marketing. The Legal Marketing Association has been pushing for more consistent regulation of lawyer advertising since 2005, and welcomes the coming report, Perret said.
The commission is accepting comment on the proposed rule cha
