Legalethics.com

Lawyers may be identified on a business client’s website but may not be referred to as the company’s preferred lawyers

Peterk — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:44:04 +0000

A law firm may be identified on a business client’s Web site, but may not be referred to as the company’s preferred lawyers. Opinion 2004-7 (August 6, 2004)
Communication to the public of a law firm’s name and logo on a business client’s Web site is acceptable because it is not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statement. Communication to the public through the company Web site that a law firm is the company’s “preferred attorneys” is misleading.

Ohio issues ethics opinion limiting lawyer spam

Peterk — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 05:00:00 +0000

The Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline issues Opinion No. 2004-1, which addresses ethical constraints on lawyers’ ability to send unsolicited e-mail (aka, spam).

Ohio decision may help define whether certain online conduct by non-lawyers is tantamount to impermissible legal practice

Peterk — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:00:00 +0000

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.

Ohio Panel Analyzes Commercial Web Sites That Link Lawyers With Prospective Clients

Peterk — Sat, 12 May 2001 04:00:00 +0000

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.

Ohio lawyers may participate in an online lawyer referral service

Peterk — Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:00:00 +0000

The Ohio Supreme Court’s ethics panel ruled that a lawyer may pay an online lawyer referral service a membership or registration fee as well as a fee calculated on a percentage of the legal fee earned provided that the lawyer referral service is in compliance with the DR 2-103 of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and with the Lawyer Referral and Information Services Regulations. See Opinion 2000-5 (December 1, 2000). Before participating in a lawyer referral service, an Ohio attorney should determine whether the referral service meets the requirements of DR 2-103(C)(1)(a) through (j) and complies with the Lawyer Referral and Information Services Regulations.

Lawyers can respond to question submitted via Internet website

Peterk — Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:40:21 +0000

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.

Law firms may not feature on their websites quotations from clients describing the general nature of firm’s legal services

Peterk — Wed, 05 Jan 2000 05:00:00 +0000

The Ohio Supreme Court’s ethics panel ruled that a law firm may not have its Web site feature quotations from clients describing the general nature of firm’s legal services, the firm’s responsiveness, and other non-substantive aspects of the firm’s representation. In Opinion 2000-6 (December 1, 2000), the ethics panel determined that even with the client’s consent, the proposed Web site additions would run afoul of the state’s ban on client testimonials and the prohibition against misleading public statements.

Law firms can use numbers, letters, or words other than the firm name in the firm’s Internet domain name

Peterk — Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:37:37 +0000

Although it is preferable for a lawyer to use his or her law firm name as part of the domain name for the law firm’s Internet website, it is not improper for a lawyer to use other letters, words, or numbers provided that the domain name is not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, and does not imply special competence or experience. Opinion 99-4 (June 4, 1999).

Ohio lawyers may be listed in the online membership directory of a professional association

Peterk — Wed, 07 Jul 1999 23:34:09 +0000

It is proper for an Ohio lawyer to be listed in the online membership directory of a professional association. Opinion 99-3 (June 4, 1999). An online membership directory of attorneys in a professional association is considered a law directory intended primarily for the use of the legal profession and is permitted. The opinion notes that it should not be construed as blanket approval of attorney listings in other types of online directories.

77a

Ohio lawyers need not encrypt e-mail exchanges with clients

Peterk — Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:28:55 +0000

Lawyers do not violate the duty to preserve confidences and secrets under DR 4-101 of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility by communicating with clients through electronic mail without encryption. Opinion 99-2 (April 9, 1999). Lawyers must use their professional judgment in choosing the appropriate method of each attorney-client communication