South Carolina Issues Opinion that Impacts Linked In, Plaxo, Avvo and related services
26 Oct 2009The South Carolina bar association addressed a hypothetical webside that listed attorneys without their involvement, and allows “clients” and others to “rate” the attorney. The bar association held that a lawyer could claim his listing in this service, but that all comments made about him were subject to the advertising rules. “[A]ll content in a claimed listing must conform to” the advertising rules, so held the opinion. It also basically says a laywer can’t solicit improper endorsements, and so on.
Frankly, this one baffles me. I can understand why you can’t ask someone to say something about you that you can’t yourself say, because of Rule 8.4, but am I really under an obligation to make sure non-clients comply with the lawyer advertising rules? Stay tuned, but in the meanwhile, you South Carolina lawyers better go read your various listings, I suppose including Face book!
It’s online here. I’ll gladly email you a copy if you email hricik_d@law.mercer.edu
Categories : Advertising, Internet Use
