Legalethics.com

South Carolina Opinion Permits Use of Groupon to Market Legal Services

Peterk — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:53:55 +0000

The use of “daily deal” websites to sell vouchers to be redeemed for discounted legal services does not violate the Rule 5.4(a) prohibition on sharing of legal fees, but the attorney is cautioned that the use of such websites must be in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and could lead to violations of several other rules if logistical issues are not appropriately addressed. See Ethics Opinion 11-05.

New York Lawyers May Use Groupon to Market Legal Services

Peterk — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:50:42 +0000

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).

Law firm executive committee responsible for content on firm website (Louisiana)

Peterk — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:13:52 +0000

A recent decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a law firm’s executive committee is legally responsible for misstatements on a law firm’s website.

Kentucky judges may participate in social networking sites such as Facebook

Peterk — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:30:26 +0000

Kentucky judges may participate in social networking sites such as Facebook but a judge must carefully consider the nature of the relationship with an attorney. Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-119 (January 20, 2010).

Judges may not add lawyers as Facebook friends

Peterk — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:21:02 +0000

The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee indicates that judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a social networking site or permit such lawyers to add the judge as their “friend.” See Opinion No. 2009-20 (November 17, 2009).

Attorneys may need to make full disclosure when before accessing Facebook and social media sites

Peterk — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:15:04 +0000

The Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee addressed the question of an attorney trying to access Facebook and Myspace accounts of a third party witness in Ethics Opinion 2009-2 (March 2009).

Defendant Blockshopper Obtains “fig leaf” Settlement in “Trademark” Suit brought by Jones Day

prfhricik — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:38:21 +0000

There’s an article about the settlement of a so-called trademark suit by Jones Day against Blockshopper here A summary of events in the lawsuit, here

The defendant reportedly incurred more than $100,000 in defense costs as a result of what many viewed as a baseless lawsuit.

Jones Day: Linking to Our Site is Trademark Infringement

David Hricik — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:28:50 +0000

There’s an article here. Oh, and here. Oh, and this one.

There’s a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods. Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to the firm’s website, and truthful, factual links to the individuals’ bios on the firm webpage.

Jones Day filed this complaint for trademark infringement. The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm’s website and linking to the two lawyers’ bios who bought houses.

NY St. Bar Ass’n Approves Gmail Use Despite Contextual Ad Scanning

David Hricik — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:54:28 +0000

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).

New Hampshire Adopts Rule Protecting Prospective Clients who Unilaterally Email Law Firms

David Hricik — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:20:22 +0000

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.