A California lawyer’s lawsuit against on online legal service provider alleging unauthorized practice of law withstood a demurrer. See Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services, Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. No. G046778 (Mar 14, 2013).
A recent 9th Circuit case, In re Reynoso (February 27, 2007) holds that bankruptcy advice provided by an expert system “was the conduct of a non-attorney” and therefore “constituted the unauthorized practice of law.”
Thanks to Ron Friedmann for mentioning the case.
North Carolina 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 (January 20, 2006) discusses the ethical considerations of a virtual law practice and unbundled legal serivces.
Oregon State Bar Legal Ethics Comm, Op. 2005-137 (August 2005) discusses whether lawyers may engage in joint venture to offer web-based online legal information system for a fee.
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.
Lawyers and law firms have standing to sue those who engage in the unauthorized practice of law. See Richard F. Mallen & Associated LTd. V. Myinjuryclaim.com Corp, Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist, Np. 1-00-2912 (April 18, 2002). The case is interesting because it involved a suit by a law firm against a now defunct web site that invited injured individuals to pay up to $500 to get information about the fairness of any settlement offer they received.
ASPs. Very Dangerous. You Go First, an article written by David Hricik and Peter Krakaur, outlines the ethical issues associated with the use of Application Service Providers (ASPs).
A decision issued in late December 2001 by the Ohio Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of the Law (ODC v. Palmer) may help define whether certain online conduct by non-lawyers is tantamount to impermissible legal practice. This USA Today article, Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net, discusses the case and provides some insights on how other states and authorities may view UPL claims relating to Internet activities.
New Mexico Opinion 2001-1 addresses the application of Rules of Professional Conduct to Lawyer’s Use of
Listserve-type Message Boards and Communications.
Ohio lawyers may not participate in a commercial law-related Web site that provides them with clients if the arrangement entails prohibited payment for referrals or if the business is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 2001-2 (April 6, 2001). When an attorney is contacted by a law-related commercial Web site company that offers to make available, in some manner, the attorney’s name, address, phone number, area of practice, or other information to potential clients in exchange for the attorney providing compensation to the company, the attorney must be extremely cautious. The opinion distinguishes between payments for advertising and payments for referrals.
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.
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).
It is proper for an Ohio lawyer to place an on-line intake form on the law firm’s Internet website that enables web site visitors to e-mail legal questions to the law firm and receive responses by e-mail from a lawyer for a fee. Opinion 99-9 (December 2, 1999). The opinion outlines ethical considerations for lawwyers to follow to insure compliance with applicable rules of professional conduct.
A lawyer may advertise as a “sponsor” on an Internet legal. information and advertising service, provided that (1) the service does not in any way state or suggest that the information to which the inquirer is referred was prepared or is being compiled by the “Sponsoring”– attorney, (2) the format in which the Sponsor’s name is presented does not suggest that this attorney is being recommended or endorsed by the service, (3) the Internet service makes clear that the attorney’s name appears, in response to the inquirer’s request, as an advertisement, and (4) the “button” or “link” provided by the service does not create a “real-time” dialogue with the Sponsor, but is limited to permitting the inquiring person to view the Sponsor’s website. Nassau County Bar Ass’n Opinion 99-3. (Sepetmber 29, 1999). That part of the Internet service which highlights attorneys paying a premium advertising fee as “Lead Counsel” is, however, susceptible of being understood to mean that Lead Counsel are superior to other attorney and is therefore misleading and improper.
Philadelpiha Bar Association opinion 98-6 (March 1998), discusses ethical issues associated with lawyer discussion group and chat use.
(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)
(15)
(2)
(107)
(1)
(2)
