Committee on Professional Ethics Topic: “Whether using the phrases “I KNOW HOW TO WIN FOR YOU” or “unsurpassed litigation skills,” violates Rule 7.1.” Digest of the Committee: “Neither the statement “I KNOW HOW TO WIN FOR YOU” or “unsurpassed litigation skills” in lawyer advertising is permissible under Rule 7.1 because the statements are misleading, and neither statement can […]
Originally published as Ethics Watch: Technology and Ethics (“Technethics”): 2013 in Review, South Carolina Lawyer 14 (March 2014) Bidding on the name of a competitor firm to obtain a sponsored link above the competitor in a Google search does not violate Wisconsin’s privacy law. Under Wisconsin law use of a person’s name for advertising purposes without […]
The Ohio Disciplinary Board has advised that lawyers may use text messaging to contact potential clients. In addition, the Board decided that text messaging generally did not amount to “real-time electronic contact” in violation of Rule 7.2 dealing with solicitation, distinguishing text messaging from contact in chat rooms. Ohio Opinion #2013-2. However, the committee also […]
New York State bar association – State bar news, March/April 2014, volume. 56, No.2, p. 26 The author discusses challenges and risks of search engine optimization, which has rewritten the rules of online advertisement. Companies now have to make sure their Google ranking is the highest, or their business will die. In order to reach […]
Originally published as Ethics Watch: Technology and Ethics (“Technethics”): 2013 in Review, South Carolina Lawyer 14 (March 2014) In past years I have written a year-in-review Ethics Watch column, covering significant South Carolina ethics decisions and opinions, along with ABA Formal Opinions issued during the year. Because technology is playing an increasingly important role in the […]
A.B.A. J., Jan. 2014 The author discusses ABA Formal Opinion 465 and the ethical risks deriving from lawyers’ use of deal-of-the-day marketing programs. Referenced Authority: ABA Formal Opinion 465 The full text is available at http://www.abajournal….
Ethics Advisory Committee Topic: May attorneys enter into a co-operative style TV based advertising contract with a for profit, non-lawyer, out-of-state third party advertising company paying a pro-rata share cost? Summary of the Committee “Advertisements must include the name and office address of a responsible South Carolina attorney and, in order to avoid misleading the […]
In 2013 Florida adopted new rules on lawyer advertising that impose restrictions on websites and blogs. In particular, statements in these media must be “objectively verifiable.” A lawsuit filed December 10 challenges the constitutionality of the rules under the First Amendment. The complaint includes a detailed history of Florida’s broad restrictions on lawyer advertising. Follow us on& […]
52 Hofstra Law Review 175 (2013) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378492##; Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 13-17. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2378492 From the author’s abstract “When lawyers receive a document — whether hard copy or an electronic document — that they know the adversary sent them inadvertently (for example, a fax or email mistakenly sent to an adversary […]
Professional Ethics Committee Topic: Referral Fee; Advertising Syllabus of the Committee: A lawyer’s agreement to pay a referral fee to a nonlawyer-owned, for profit website entity for each potential consumer that accesses the website and expresses an interest in the lawyer’s substantive law subject matter is unethical, since it requires the lawyer to give something […]