Arizona

Contact Information

Complaints

State Bar of Arizona
111 W. Monroe Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003-11742
Phone: (602) 252-4804 Ext. 280
Phone: (602) 340-7280
Fax: (602) 271-4930

State Bar

State Bar of Arizona
111 W. Monroe Street
Phoenix, AZ, 85003-1742
Tel: (602) 252-4804
Fax: (602) 271-4930
Contact: Lynda Shely

Status

The State Bar of Arizona now offers ethics opinions on line. The Bar previously released advisory ethics opinion 97-04 on April 7, 1997, dealing with a number of Internet ethics issues. A summary appears below. We also offer a re-print of an article Lawyer Ethics and Technology, written by Lynda Shely, Special Services Counsel of the State bar, for the Arizona State Bar Convention in June 1996. Although the opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and NOT the opinions of the State Bar of Arizona or of the Ethics Committee of the Arizona State Bar, they offer a summary of what ethical issues for Arizona lawyers face with respect to the Internet.

The State Bar of Arizona has an electronic bulletin board system exclusively for state bar members. In order to obtain the software and more information, contact Becky Weiner, Director of Communications, State Bar of Arizona (602) 340-7309.

Opinion 97-04 Summary

A lawyer web site is considered a "communication" that is subject to ethics rules. ALL requirements of rules 7.1 - 7.5 apply (But see references to ER 7.3 below). While rule 7.5 prohibits the use of tradenames for law firms, a domain name is not subject to the limitations of rule 7.5. Note that the three-year copy retention requirement applies to the web site and to "material substantive changes." However, lawyers probably do not need to submit a copy of their web sites to the State Bar and the Supreme Court pursuant to rule 7.3 (the opinion notes that web sites are designed to provide general information and not sent generally to prospective clients).
If a firm has offices in many states, the firm must comply with Arizona ethics rlues if the firm has an office in Arizona or attorneys licensed to practice in Arizona.
Lawyers may not mention in web site or in a "chat room" that the lawyer "specializes" in a practice area. See ER 7.4.
Direct e-mail contact with a prospective client may violate ER 7.3. If the lawyer initiates the contact and the potential client has a known legal need for a particular matter, ER 7.3(b)'s disclosure obligations apply. The opinion contrasts situations where (1) a lawyer answers a question in a "chat room (the lawyer does not initiate the contact)," (2) a lawyer responds to a direct inquiry, and (3) communications are sent to all members of a listserve. In situations where ER 7.3 applies, lawyers should make reasonable efforts to comply with the requirements of ER 7.3(c) -- red ink and envelope disclaimers and transmission of copy of communication to Clerk of Supreme Court. At a minimum, the drafters of the opinion suggest that the disclaimer language should appear in capital letters in the subject line and in the body of the communication.
Lawyers should not answer specific legal questions in "chat rooms" or "newsgroups" because of the inability to screen for potential conflicts with existing clients and disclosure of confidential information. See ER 1.7, 1.6, and formal opinions 87-23 and 92-10.
Lawyers may not join an on-line lawyer referral service unless the service is in compliance with ER 7.1(r)(3). As of the date of the opinion, there were no on-line referral services approved by the Arizona State Bar.
Although lawyers may want to have e-mail encrypted with a password known only to the lawyer and the client, lawyers may communicate with existing clients via e-mail about confidential matters.

In [Formal Opinion 95-11], the Committee cautioned lawyers against discussing sensitive information via a cellular phone even though the interception of such a conversation would be illegal. The Opinion stated, however, that it is not unethical for a lawyer to communicate with a client via cellular phone. Similarly, with e-mail, it is not unethical to communicate with a client via e-mail even if the e-mail is not encrypted; this COmmittee simply suggests that it is preferable to protect attorney/client communications to the extent it is practical. Lawyers also are reminded that e-mail records may be discoverable, including records of time and date of transmission. This information thus should be included in the lawyer's decision as to whether or not confidential information should be communicated via e-mail.

Rules and Regulations

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct offers the Code of Judicial Conduct and information on how to file a complaint. The State Bar offers the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Potential Issues

Rule 7.1: No false or misleading communication.
Rule 7.1(o): Retain copy of advertisement for three years.
Rule 7.2(e): Language to be inserted in published/broadcast communications.
Rule 7.4: Identification of attorney as specialist.