20
Feb
2008
Effective January 1, 2008, New Hampshire adopted a rule that clearly protects persons who, in good faith, e-mail confidential information to a lawyer from having the lawyer use the information against the prospective client. The comments to New Hampshshire Rule 1.18 provide in part: “In its version of these provisions, New Hampshire’s rule eliminates the terminology of ‘discussion’ or ‘consultation’ and extends the protections of the rule to persons who, in a good faith search for representation, provide information unilaterally to a lawyer who subsequently receives and reviews the information. This change recognizes that persons frequently initiate contact with an attorney in writing, by e-mail, or in other unilateral forms, and in the process disclose confidential information that warrants protection.”
The rule no doubt makes it more important for NH lawyersto use effective disclaimers on their web pages.
Comments : Comments Off
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, E-mail, New Hampshire, Internet Use, Computer Use, Attorney-client privilege, Conflicts, Rules of Conduct
7
Jun
2007
In the absence of an effective disclaimer, a lawyer who receives unsolicited information from a prospective client through an e-mail link on a law firm website must hold the information in confidence, even if the lawyer declines the representation. Massachusetts Bar Opinion 2007-01.The opinion also addresses whether the lawyer’s firm can represent a party adverse to that prospective client.
Comments : Comments Off
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, Conflicts, Massachusetts
17
Jan
2007
Lawyers must consider confidentiality and other ethical issues associated with inquiries they receive through a website. Informal opinion 2080 (2006).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Advertising, Disclaimers, Washington, Conflicts, Solicitation
5
May
2006
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Disclaimers, E-mail
17
Jun
2005
Computer-accessed communications include, but are not limited to, Internet presences such as home pages or World Wide Web sites, unsolicited electronic mail communications, and information concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services that appears on World Wide Web search engine screens and elsewhere. Opinion 252 (April 22, 2005). Rule 7.5, MRPC, addresses the mandatory submission requirement of advertisements prior to their dissemination. Rule 7.5(b), MRPC, outlines advertisements that are not required to be submitted prior to dissemination. Among these is 7.5(b)(8), MRPC, which states that “Internet Web pages viewed via a Web browser, in a search initiated by a person without solicitation” are exempt from the submission requirement. Therefore, while an internet web-page may be considered an advertisement, it is not mandatory that it be submitted to the Office of General Counsel for The Mississippi Bar. Disclaimers need not appear on every web site page.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Advertising, Disclaimers, E-mail, Mississippi
8
Jun
2005
The Ninth Circuit has issued a decision which analyzes the impact of disclaimers on law firm websites which purport to deny formation of an attorney client relationship to those who submit information through forms on law firm web sites. The Ninth Circuit permitted a plaintiff who had submitted information to a firm while disclaiming creation of any attorney-client relationship to claim privilege over it. In contrast, a recent Interim opinion from California suggests that lawyers can avoid creating a confidential relationship only by specifically denying any obligation of confidentiality in order to avoid disqualification by a prospective client using the firm’s website. The same conclusions were reached a few months earlier in Nevada Formal Ethics Opinion No. 32 (March 25, 2005). Taken together, the opinions suggest that denying confidentiality is necessary to avoid disqualification, but doing so will preclude the person who submits the information from claiming privilege over it. Professor Hricik suggests some model language that avoids these issues.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Attorney-client relationship, California, Disclaimers, Attorney-client privilege
28
Dec
2002
A lawyer does not owe a duty of confidentiality to an individual who unilaterally e-mails an unsolicited inquiry to a lawyer. The sender does not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in such situations. Law firm websites, with attorney e-mail addresses, however, should include disclaimers regarding whether or not e-mail communications from prospective clients will be treated as confidential See Arizona State Bar Opinion 02-04
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, E-mail, Arizona
4
Mar
2002
New Mexico Opinion 2001-1 addresses the application of Rules of Professional Conduct to Lawyer’s Use of
Listserve-type Message Boards and Communications.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Advertising, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, Discussion Groups, UPL, New Mexico
6
Jun
2001
The Register’s Readers’ Letters The Email Disclaimer Awards 2001: if you think you’ve seen some long or odd e-mail disclaimers, check these out.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Disclaimers, E-mail
15
Jan
2001
Lawyer websites are “advertising” within the meaning of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct. Opinion 2000-04. Lawyers must comply with the applicable requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.2 concerning accuracy and record-keeping. Unless the information on the Web site is directed to persons or groups whom the lawyer knows to be in need of legal services and with whom the lawyer does not have a family or prior professional relationship, the Web pages need not include the words “Advertising Material” otherwise required by Rule 7.3(c). It is advisable for the lawyer to use carefully worded disclosures and disclaimers to clarify the purposes and value of the information on the Web site and in the lawyer’s e-mail responses to questions generated by the Web site. However, the use of disclaimers will not necessarily preclude the formation of a lawyer-client relationship and its attendant ethical responsibilities, “in” particular circumstances.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, E-mail, Vermont
26
Sep
2000
In Opinion 00-01, the Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct addressed proposed curative language and other questions regarding law firm website advertising materials. (September 6, 2000).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Disclaimers, Iowa
6
Sep
2000
It is not a violation of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to respond to inquiries posted on an Internet message board provided the lawyer clarifies the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the person or company making the inquiry and the limits of the information that the lawyer is providing. 2000 Formal Ethics Opinion 3 (July 21, 2000).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Disclaimers, Discussion Groups, UPL, North Carolina
16
Jun
1999
Lawyers may be listed on a website by national association of lawyers. Opinion 980268 (1998). Any information which states or implies specialization, or a higher level of competence in a particular area, triggers the disclaimer requirement of Rule 4-7.4, unless 4-7.4(a) or (b) apply. Information regarding board certifications would trigger this disclaimer. Information regarding honors, memberships and areas of practice might trigger the disclaimer, depending on the specific content and wording.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Disclaimers, Missouri
4
Apr
1999
In opinion 980026, the Missouri bar analyzed the issues raised by a proposal by unaffiliated lawyers to provide generalized legal information offer access to three attorneys who are non-affiliated, private practitioners. Although a plain and unambiguous disclaimer may be sufficient to alert someone to the actual nature of the relationship, it may not be sufficient to insulate the lawyers from being treated as a firm from an ethical standpoint. In addition to the concerns about creating the appearance of a firm, lawyers should also be aware that there are concerns about soliciting e-mail from prospective clients through a web site. If a lawyer engages in the practice of communicating with current or prospective clients by e-mail, the lawyer bears the responsibility of providing them timely advice regarding the relative security of communication by e-mail, in general, and in the particular computer setting through which they would be communicating. Lawyers also creates the potential for conflicts of interest through the receipt of substantive information by e-mail.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Attorney-client relationship, Disclaimers, E-mail, Missouri, Attorney-client privilege, Conflicts
20
Nov
1998
West Virginia Rules of Conduct apply to all electronic communications about the services of lawyers who practice in West Virginia, regardless of where the communication originates. Opinion 98-03 (October 16, 1998). Websites, new groups, and e-mail are all potential forms of advertising and solicitation. State rules apply to any commuications sent or directed to West Virginia residents specifically, even if the communications are from lawyers who are not admitted in West Virginia.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Disclaimers, E-mail, Solicitation, Chat, West Virginia
