Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionalsMon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7enLawyers 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=396Lawyers 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=285Texas 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 solicit prospective clients through Internet chat rooms
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=85#commentsSun, 20 Aug 2000 04:00:00 +0000PeterkFloridaSolicitationChathttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=85Lawyers may not solicit prospective clients through Internet chat rooms, defined as real time communications between computer users. See Florida Bar Adv. Op. A-00-1 (August 15, 2000).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=85Lawyer may advertise as a “sponsor” on an Internet legal information and advertising service
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=291#commentsSat, 04 Dec 1999 22:32:18 +0000PeterkLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingNew YorkUPLSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1999/12/04/lawyer-may-advertise-as-a-sponsor-on-an-internet-legal-information-and-advertising-service/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.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=291New York City Bar opinion outlines requirements for lawyers websites, discussion groups, and e-mail exchanges
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=289#commentsWed, 17 Feb 1999 22:22:40 +0000PeterkConfidentialityLawyer Referral ServicesWebsitesAdvertisingE-mailDiscussion GroupsNew YorkSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1999/02/17/new-york-city-bar-opinion-outlines-requirements-for-lawyers-websites-discussion-groups-and-e-mail-exchanges/A law firm should maintain a copy of its website for at least one year, but need not file a copy with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Assn’of the Bar of the City of New York Opinion 1998-2 (December 21, 1998). A law firm that establishes a discussion area on its website should exercise caution and vigilance to avoid the establishment of an attorney-client relationship and impermissible advertising or solicitation. A law firm may not pay a fee to an Internet service provider calculated by reference to fees earned by the law firm from the provision of on-line services. A law firm may not post a form for a new customer to request a trademark or copyright search, but may do so for existing clients. A law firm need not encrypt all e-mail communications containing confidential client information, but should advise its clients and prospective clients communicating with the firm by e-mail that security of communications over the Internet is not as secure as other forms of communications
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=289West Virginia Rules of Conduct apply to all electronic communications about the services of lawyers who practice in West Virginia
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=369#commentsSat, 21 Nov 1998 03:22:18 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingDisclaimersE-mailSolicitationChatWest Virginiahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1998/11/20/west-virginia-rules-of-conduct-apply-to-all-electronic-communications-about-the-services-of-lawyers-who-practice-in-west-virginia/West Virginia Rules of Conduct apply to all electronic communications about the services of lawyers who practice in West Virginia, regardless of where the communication originates. Opinion 98-03 (October 16, 1998). Websites, new groups, and e-mail are all potential forms of advertising and solicitation. State rules apply to any commuications sent or directed to West Virginia residents specifically, even if the communications are from lawyers who are not admitted in West Virginia.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=369California Solicitation Rules
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=140#commentsMon, 09 Nov 1998 03:41:38 +0000PeterkCaliforniaSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=140State Bar Act sections 6150-6156 dealing with unlawful solicitation are available online.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=140Advertising rules may apply to Connecticut lawyer websites
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=158#commentsWed, 03 Dec 1997 20:24:17 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingConnecticutSolicitationhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/03/03/advertising-rules-may-apply-to-connecticut-lawyer-websites/Connecticut Informal Opinion #97-29 states that advertising rules apply to web site advertising, but Rule 7.3’s solicitation rules do not as a general matter. The applicability of Connecticut’s rule to out-of-state advertisements by lawyers is a question of law and beyond the ethics committee’s jurisdiction. (October 29, 1997)
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=158Utah lawyers may advertise via Internet website
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=389#commentsTue, 11 Nov 1997 02:17:30 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingE-mailUtahSolicitationChathttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1997/11/10/utah-lawyers-may-advertise-on-internet-website/Utah lawyers may operate and maintain a website and post advertisements to newsgroups, provided they comply with Rule 7. Opinion 97-10 (October 24, 1997) Advertising through e-mail messages, which are directed to specific recipients, is generally permissible unless it violates Rule 7.3(b). Attorneys’ participation in “chat groups” is considered to be an “in person” communication and subject to the restrictions of rule 7.3(a).