Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionalsMon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7enWashington lawyers may not participate in a proposed online for-profit referral service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=395#commentsSun, 07 Jan 2007 03:11:52 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesWashingtonhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/02/06/washington-lawyers-may-not-participate-in-a-proposed-online-for-profit-referral-service/Washington opinion 2106 (2006) addresses several ethical concerns raised by a lawyer’s propsed participation in an online for-profit referral service.
http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=395Lawyers may not use the services of a website that forwards inquiries from potential clients to subscribing lawyers
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=285#commentsSun, 12 Nov 2006 22:04:47 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingNew YorkSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2006/11/12/lawyers-may-not-use-the-services-of-a-website-that-forwards-inquiries-from-potential-clients-to-subscribing-lawyers/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
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=285Arizona lawyers may not participate in unauthorized Internet referral service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=127#commentsTue, 17 Oct 2006 04:00:00 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesArizonahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=127An 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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=127Texas lawyers lawyer may pay a fee to participate in an internet client-lawyer connection service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=397#commentsMon, 11 Sep 2006 03:39:22 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingTexashttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2006/09/10/texas-lawyers-lawyer-may-pay-a-fee-to-participate-in-an-internet-client-lawyer-connection-service/Texas lawyers may participate in a privately sponsored internet service that obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to lawyers who have paid to participate in the internet service. Opinion 573 (July 2006).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=397Disclaimers required for listings on Internet advertising sites
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=274#commentsFri, 17 Mar 2006 20:58:51 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingNew Jerseyhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2006/03/17/disclaimers-required-for-listings-on-internet-advertising-sites/New Jersey lawyers must ensure that Internet listings or advertisements on third party websites contain a prominently and unmistakably displayed disclaimer. Opinion 36 (182 NJLJ 1206, 15 NJL 48, December 26, 2005). The disclaimer must be at least equal to the largest and most prominent font and type on the site, declaring that “all attorney listings are a paid attorney advertisement, and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by an approved or authorized lawyer referral service.”
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=274Iowa lawyers may not link to and participate in an online referral service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=193#commentsWed, 11 Jan 2006 01:34:32 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesAdvertisingIowahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2006/01/10/iowa-lawyers-may-not-link-to-and-participate-in-an-online-referral-service/Iowa lawyers may not link to and participate in an online referral service that provides consumers with a way to find attorneys by specialty and locale and publishes a wealth of consumer legal content and attorney resources.Iowa Opinion 00-07 (December 5, 2000).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=193Internet matching service is a prohibited lawyer referral service and impermissible advertising
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=19#commentsTue, 15 Nov 2005 04:00:00 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingTexashttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=19Texas lawyers may not pay a fee to be listed on a for-profit Internet site that obtains information from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards that information to one or more lawyers who paid for listings. Such an Internet matching service is a prohibited lawyer referral service and not permissible advertising. Texas State Bar Professional Ethics Comm., Op. 561 (August 2005)
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=19Texas lawyers may not pay a fee to be listed on a privately sponsored internet site
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=398#commentsFri, 07 Oct 2005 03:41:18 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingTexasSolicitationLawyer Independencehttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2005/10/06/texas-lawyers-may-not-pay-a-fee-to-be-listed-on-a-privately-sponsored-internet-site/Texas lawyers may not pay a fee to be listed on a privately sponsored internet site which obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to one or more lawyers who have paid to be listed on the internet site. Opinion 561 (August 2005).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=398Lawyers may not pay to participate in the for-profit client/attorney Internet matching service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=129#commentsWed, 07 Sep 2005 04:00:00 +0000PeterkStatesLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingArizonahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=129A 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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=129North Carolina lawyers may particiapte in Internet matching services
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=299#commentsTue, 10 Aug 2004 22:55:17 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingNorth Carolinahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2004/08/10/north-carolina-lawyers-may-particiapte-in-internet-matching-services/North Carolina lawyers may participate in an on-line service that is similar to both a lawyer referral service and a legal directory provided there is no fee sharing with the service and all communications about the lawyer and the service are truthful. 2004 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (April 23, 2004).