Legalethics.com

Arizona’s bar association in Opinion 07-03 (Nov. 2007) concluded that, while lawyers must use reasonable care to “scrub” metadata from out-going documents, a recipient must generally avoid looking for inadvertently included metadata, but instead generally must notify the sender of the inclusion of metadata.

An online service that matches prospective clients with potential lawyers based on the appropriate geographic and practice areas, makes representations about the qualifications of its member lawyers, and provides a monetary satisfaction guarantee, is a “lawyer referral service” within the meaning of ER 7.2(b). Unless the service is a non-profit service or is approved by an appropriate regulatory authority, Arizona attorneys may not pay a fee to participate. See Arizona Opinion 06-06 (September 2006).

A lawyer may not pay to participate in the for-profit client/attorney internet matching service because the Service substantially functions as, and holds itself out as, a referral service and because the information presented by the Service on behalf of participating lawyers is materially misleading. See Arizona Opinion #05-08 (July 2005).

The Arizona State Bar Association in July 2005 issued Opinion 05-04 which holds that it is permissible for lawyers to store client data on a computer which is connected to the Internet, but only if the lawyer takes “reasonable steps” to assure that the confidentiality over such information is not lost through inadvertence or theft.

A national lawyer association ethically may place its membership directory on its Internet web site, categorized by practice areas. See Arizona Opinion 99-10 (September 1999). The association may want to: 1) list State Bar admissions for each member, to avoid unauthorized practice of law concerns; and 2) clarify that the ?practice area? designations do not necessarily mean that the lawyers are certified specialists in those fields.

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

The father of modern spam speaks — on April 12, 1994, Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, two immigration lawyers from Arizona, flooded the Internet with a mass mailing promoting their law firm’s advisory services. Mr. Canter was subsequently disbarred from practicing law by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1997, partly because of his e-mail advertising campaign.

A law firm domain name does not have to be identical to the firm’s actual name but it otherwise must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct including refraining from being false or misleading nor may it imply any special competence or unique affiliations unless factually true. See Arizona 2001-05 (March 2001). A for-profit law firm domain name should not use the top level domain suffix “.org” nor should it use a domain name that implies that the law firm is affiliated with a particular non-profit organization or governmental entity.

Arizona lawyers may not ethically participate in an Internet service that sends legal questions from individuals to attorneys based upon the subject matter of the question. The opinion also notes that lawyers can not pay a fee for such referrals or give the service a portion of the legal fees earned from the referral See Arizona Opinion 1999-06 (PDF) (HTML version)(June 1999). A for-profit law firm domain name should not use the top level domain suffix “.org” nor should it use a domain name that implies that the law firm is affiliated with a particular non-profit organization or governmental entity.

The State Bar of Arizona is available online.

The Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct are available online.
Cornell’s American Legal Ethics Library also offers a copy with commentary.

Arizona ethics opinions are available online.

Arizona Opinion #97-04 (PDF) (HTML version)(April 7, 1997) discusses advertising “housekeeping” requirements, such as need to include the cities where the lawyer has offices and/or will actually perform work (citing ER 7.1); client consent needed before providing a list of existing clients; and explanations regarding whether or not firms are affiliated if site provides links to other firms. (ER 7.1(p)). Direct e-mail to a prospective client may be a solicitation if the lawyer initiates the contact and the client has a known legal need for a particular matter. If it is solicitation, then specific disclosure must be made and copy must be sent to Clerk of Supreme Court. Lawyers probably may not join an on-line referral service. Generally, lawyers need not submit copy of Web site to State Bar and Supreme Court. Lawyers must retain copy of Web site in some retrievable format” AND record of when and where the web site was used.