May 15, 2013 in Advertising, Arizona, Attorney-client relationship, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Fee sharing by PeterK
State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 13-01 addressed whether an Internet marketing voucher or coupon sold by a lawyer for legal representation is consistent with the Arizona Rules of Professional
February 12, 2013 in Advertising, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Indiana by PeterK
Indiana lawyers should not use Groupon or similar coupon or daily deal sites to market legal services. See Indiana Ethics Op. 2012-1.
February 2, 2013 in Advertising, Fee sharing, Nebraska, Websites by PeterK
Nebraska lawyers may advertise their services via Groupon and similar sites. Nebraska Ethics Opinion 12-03.
January 15, 2013 in Advertising, Alabama, Conflicts, Fee sharing by PeterK
Alabama lawyers may not use of websites like Groupon to sell their legal services because it violates the ethics rule against sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, as well as the
April 10, 2002 in Advertising, Fee sharing, Lawyer Referral Services, Washington, Websites by PeterK
A Washington lawyer is not prohibited from entering into an agreement, such as that required by the for profit Internet entity that operates a Web site providing users of the
June 16, 2001 in Advertising, Attorney-client privilege, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Maryland, Websites by PeterK
In Md. State Bar Assn. Committee on Ethics Opinion 01-03 (May 16, 2001), the committee opined that a proposed Internet business that would bring lawyers together with potential clients and
February 7, 2001 in Advertising, Confidentiality, Fee sharing, Washington, Websites by PeterK
Proposal by a Washington lawyer participate as owners in a company, in which other owners are presumably not lawyers, to market the firmâ€™s legal services through a Web site raises
April 6, 1999 in Advertising, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Washington by PeterK
Proposal to open National Internet Law Office does not comply with Washington state advertising rules relating to trade names and raises conflicts, fee splitting, and confidentiality concerns. Informal opinion 1831