A lawyer may market legal services on a “deal of the day” or “group coupon” website
provided that the advertising is not misleading or deceptive and makes clear that no lawyer-client
relationship will be formed until the lawyer can check for conflicts and competence to provide the
services.See Opinion 897 (Dec 13, 2011).
A lawyer may use online cloud providers to store and back up client files provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that confidentiality will be maintained in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s obligations under Rule 1.6. Additionally, the lawyer should stay abreast of technological advances to ensure that storage remains sufficient to protect the client’s data and should monitor the laws of privilege to ensure that the online storage will not cause loss or waive privilege. See N.Y.S.B.A. Eth. Op. 842 (Sept. 10, 2010).
The New York Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 2009. Additional Professional Standard resources are available from the State Bar.
The New York State Bar Association concluded that lawyers could use gmail and comply with the duty of confidentiality despite the fact that email is ’scanned’ by Google to place contextual ads. The committee warned that this sort of unthinking, automated review was proper, but not human review. N.Y. St. B. Ass’n. Comm. Prof. Eth. Op. 820 (Feb. 8, 2008).
In Formal Opinion 2008-1 (July 2008), the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York addressed various issues concerning the organization, delivery, and the ability to charge clients for delivery of electronic files after the end of a representation. An earlier Wisconsin opinion on the same subject is here.
Another opinion, this one from the New York County Bar Association (New York County Lawyers’ Ass’n Comm. of Professional Ethics, Op. 738 (March 24, 2008)), suggests that lawyers should not look for metadata (again, we’re not talking in the discovery context). The opinion is here.
A New York Times article describes how large New York law firms are modifying their website home pages and otherwise complying with new advertising rules.
A redline version of the new lawyer advertising rules effective February 1, 2007, is available online from the New York State Unified Court System website.
Lawyers may not use the services of a website that forwards inquiries from potential clients to subscribing lawyers. Opinion 799 (September 29, 2006). While websites may be used for advertising purposes, they can not, in exchange for a fee, carry out activities that in a non-web setting would constitute prohibited solicitation or referral
Nassau County Bar Association Ethics Opinions are available online.
The New York Bar Association acknowledges in an ethics opinion 782 that under some circumstances there may be a duty to avoid disclosure of metadata and similar hidden information. (December 8, 2004).
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York issues an ethics opinion on the ethical rules implicated by a lawyer’s use of a domain name other than the firm name. “A lawyer or law firm may use a domain name that does not include or embody the firm’s name or that of any individual lawyer, under certain conditions: the web site bearing the domain name must clearly and conspicuously identify the actual law firm name; the domain name must not be false, deceptive or misleading; the name must not imply any special expertise or competence, or suggest a particular result; and, it must not be used in advertising as a substitute identifier of the firm.” NYC Eth. Op. 2003-01 (April 9, 2004).
The inclusion of a web site or e-mail address as the sole address in an advertisement of legal services does not satisfy the requirement of DR 2-101(K) to include the street address of the lawyer or firm whose services are being offered. Opinion 756 (March 13, 2002). Every such advertisement must include the street address of the office of the advertising lawyer or law firm.
Lawyers who receives an unsolicited communication from a prospective client may represent another client in the same matter against the prospective client. Ass’n of Bar of City of New York Opinion 2001-1. (March 2001). Where the web site does not adequately warn that information transmitted to the lawyer or firm will not be treated as confidential, the information should be held in confidence by the lawyer receiving the communication and not disclosed to or used for the benefit of the other client even though the lawyer declines to represent the potential client.
Lawyers may respond to an invitation to bid on legal projects through an internet website where client’s invitation is not initiated by lawyer, where only the client is charged a fee, no legal fees are shared with the service provider, and responding lawyers are not pre-screened, approved, or otherwise regulated by the plan. See New York City 2000-1.
(112)
(1)
(15)
(20)
(58)
(4)
(2)
(6)
(16)
(51)
(90)
(14)
(8)
(18)
(11)
(8)
(19)
(69)
(40)
(64)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(36)
(3)
(39)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(24)
(12)
(63)
(6)
(12)
(15)
(12)
(3)
(22)
(10)
(5)
(4)
(15)
(3)
(14)
(5)
(6)
(4)
(8)
(12)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(6)
(3)
(22)
(2)
(7)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(10)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(14)
(3)
(5)
(5)
(7)
(7)
(4)
(23)
(12)
(5)
(13)
(3)
(7)
(17)
(4)
(10)
(5)
(9)
(8)
(6)
(8)
(6)
(11)
(5)
(5)
(3)
(15)
(2)
(107)
(1)
(2)
