Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionalsMon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7enNew Hampshire Adopts Rule Protecting Prospective Clients who Unilaterally Email Law Firms
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=443#commentsWed, 20 Feb 2008 15:20:22 +0000David HricikConfidentialityWebsitesAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersE-mailNew HampshireInternet UseComputer UseAttorney-client privilegeConflictsRules of Conducthttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=443Effective 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.
http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=443Lawyers receiving unsolicited e-mails from prospective clients via website must hold information received in confidence
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=431#commentsFri, 08 Jun 2007 01:37:35 +0000PeterkConfidentialityWebsitesAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersConflictsMassachusettshttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=431In the absence of an effective disclaimer, a lawyer who receives unsolicited information from a prospective client through an e-mail link on a law firm website must hold the information in confidence, even if the lawyer declines the representation. Massachusetts Bar Opinion 2007-01.The opinion also addresses whether the lawyer’s firm can represent a party adverse to that prospective client.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=431Lawyers need to consider several aspects of duty of confidentiality for inquiries through a web site
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=396#commentsThu, 18 Jan 2007 03:29:43 +0000PeterkConfidentialityWebsitesAdvertisingDisclaimersWashingtonConflictsSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/03/06/lawyers-need-to-consider-several-aspects-of-duty-of-confidentiality-for-inquiries-through-a-web-site/Lawyers must consider confidentiality and other ethical issues associated with inquiries they receive through a website. Informal opinion 2080 (2006).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=396Professor Hricik publishes article about the proper use of website disclaimers
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=24#commentsSat, 06 May 2006 04:00:00 +0000PeterkWebsitesDisclaimersE-mailhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=24In April, an article about the proper use of website disclaimers to avoid disqualification by incoming e-mail was posted by David Hricik.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=24Mississippi lawyer wbe sites must comply with applicable advertising rules
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=241#commentsSat, 18 Jun 2005 04:29:26 +0000PeterkAdvertisingDisclaimersE-mailMississippihttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2005/06/17/mississippi-lawyer-wbe-sites-must-comply-with-applicable-advertising-rules/Computer-accessed communications include, but are not limited to, Internet presences such as home pages or World Wide Web sites, unsolicited electronic mail communications, and information concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s services that appears on World Wide Web search engine screens and elsewhere. Opinion 252 (April 22, 2005). Rule 7.5, MRPC, addresses the mandatory submission requirement of advertisements prior to their dissemination. Rule 7.5(b), MRPC, outlines advertisements that are not required to be submitted prior to dissemination. Among these is 7.5(b)(8), MRPC, which states that “Internet Web pages viewed via a Web browser, in a search initiated by a person without solicitation” are exempt from the submission requirement. Therefore, while an internet web-page may be considered an advertisement, it is not mandatory that it be submitted to the Office of General Counsel for The Mississippi Bar. Disclaimers need not appear on every web site page.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=241Ninth Circuit analyzes the impact of disclaimers on law firm websites
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=39#commentsThu, 09 Jun 2005 04:00:00 +0000PeterkConfidentialityWebsitesAttorney-client relationshipCaliforniaDisclaimersAttorney-client privilegehttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=39The Ninth Circuit has issued a decision which analyzes the impact of disclaimers on law firm websites which purport to deny formation of an attorney client relationship to those who submit information through forms on law firm web sites. The Ninth Circuit permitted a plaintiff who had submitted information to a firm while disclaiming creation of any attorney-client relationship to claim privilege over it. In contrast, a recent Interim opinion from California suggests that lawyers can avoid creating a confidential relationship only by specifically denying any obligation of confidentiality in order to avoid disqualification by a prospective client using the firm’s website. The same conclusions were reached a few months earlier in Nevada Formal Ethics Opinion No. 32 (March 25, 2005). Taken together, the opinions suggest that denying confidentiality is necessary to avoid disqualification, but doing so will preclude the person who submits the information from claiming privilege over it. Professor Hricik suggests some model language that avoids these issues.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=39Lawyers do not owe a duty of confidentiality to individuals who unilaterally e-mail an unsolicited inquiries
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=64#commentsSat, 28 Dec 2002 05:00:00 +0000PeterkConfidentialityWebsitesAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersE-mailArizonahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=64A 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
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=64New Mexico ethics opinion provides guidance regarding lawyer participation in Internet discussion forums
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=280#commentsMon, 04 Mar 2002 21:43:31 +0000PeterkConfidentialityAdvertisingAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersDiscussion GroupsUPLNew Mexicohttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2002/03/04/new-mexico-ethics-opinion-provides-guidance-regarding-lawyer-participation-in-internet-discussion-forums/New Mexico Opinion 2001-1 addresses the application of Rules of Professional Conduct to Lawyer’s Use of
Listserve-type Message Boards and Communications.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=280Article summarizing some long e-mail disclaimers
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=75#commentsThu, 07 Jun 2001 04:00:00 +0000PeterkDisclaimersE-mailhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=75The Register’s Readers’ Letters The Email Disclaimer Awards 2001: if you think you’ve seen some long or odd e-mail disclaimers, check these out.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=75Lawyer websites are “advertising” within the meaning of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=387#commentsTue, 16 Jan 2001 02:05:59 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersE-mailVermonthttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2001/01/15/lawyer-websites-are-advertising-within-the-meaning-of-the-vermont-rules-of-professional-conduct/Lawyer websites are “advertising” within the meaning of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct. Opinion 2000-04. Lawyers must comply with the applicable requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.2 concerning accuracy and record-keeping. Unless the information on the Web site is directed to persons or groups whom the lawyer knows to be in need of legal services and with whom the lawyer does not have a family or prior professional relationship, the Web pages need not include the words “Advertising Material” otherwise required by Rule 7.3(c). It is advisable for the lawyer to use carefully worded disclosures and disclaimers to clarify the purposes and value of the information on the Web site and in the lawyer’s e-mail responses to questions generated by the Web site. However, the use of disclaimers will not necessarily preclude the formation of a lawyer-client relationship and its attendant ethical responsibilities, “in” particular circumstances.