Legal News

Lawyers Need to Respond to ABA Re: Social Media Marketing by Dec. 15

By Brian Harris

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

As a lawyer, social media enthusiast, and legal marketer, I believe it is important for lawyers to share their experiences, insights and opinions as they relate to the American Bar Association?s (ABA) call for comments regarding ?lawyers? use of technology, including issues arising from Internet-based client development tools.? To read the entire request, click here.

According to their call for comments, ?The American Bar Association?s Commission on Ethics 20/20 is examining [these issues with the goal o f describing] several issues that the Commission has identified in this context and to elicit comments on possible approaches that the Commission is currently considering. Comments received may be posted to the Commission?s website and should be sent to the Commission as requested below by December 15, 2010.?

The topics under exploration include:

-Online Social and Professional Networking Services (such at LinkedIn and Facebook): Identifying the Line Between Personal Communications and Lawyer Advertising; Inadvertent Lawyer-Client Relationships; Lawyers ?Friending? Judges; and Gathering Information Through Networking Websites

-Blogging and Discussion Forums

-Paying for Online Advertising, Referrals and Leads

-Lawyer Websites: False or Misleading Statements on Websites; Inadvertent Lawyer-Client Relationships; Giving Legal Advice; and Confidential Information on Websites

According to the paper, "The commission is considering what, if any, guidance it should offer to lawyers who operate or participate in blogs, discussion boards, and other sites (like JD Supra) when their intent is, at least in part, to develop clients."

Intent? Are we now going to have to define which rules of evidence will apply in order to prove ?intent? and who will have the burden of proof should an attorney?s online activities be questioned by a disciplinary board.

I can see it now. The lawyer in the disciplinary board hearing is asked: What was your intent when you accept that recommendation on LinkedIn?? The lawyer answers, ?My client was happy with the work I provided and wanted her network to know. I was pleased with the recommendation and allowed it. My intent was to accept the recommendation.? 

I can?t help but wonder at what point legal marketing ethics rules become overly intrusive, overly restrictive and as Larry Bodine puts it, ?burdensome.? In fact, Bodine posted a ?red alert? last week on this very topic.

It is hard to believe that regulations on legal marketing continue to exist to the extent that they do. Just think, it was only 33 years ago when commercial free speech for lawyers was first established in the landmark case of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, when having a shingle on Broad Street, a ?calling card? and showing up at community events was enough to keep a law firm afloat. Since then, how we communicate (and how the public identifies potential service providers) has changed exponentially, as has the practice of law.

It?s time for lawyers to speak up. 

Related article on this topic: The National Law Journal - "ABA Ethics Study of Client Development Tools Alarms Marketers"

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., a public relations and marketing agency with a niche in legal communications. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com, is a regular contributor to The Legal Intelligencer?s blog and blogs for The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-furia-rubel). You can find her on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/ginafuriarubel or follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ginarubel.  For more information, go to www.FuriaRubel.com.

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on November 08, 2010 (boomark / email).