The Business Of Law

Everyone knows the old cliché, “you break it, you bought it”. Well we may need to create a new version of that old saying when it comes to lawyer’s interaction with internet sites such as Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell that talk about them. The new saying being, “You touch it, you own it”.

In the world of legal marketing, almost all law firms now have websites, and many are using blogs to publish their expert commentary on legal topics. Some are even including social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter as part of their effort to promote their services. Finally there are sites like Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers and Avvo that post informational listings of attorneys.

We have seen a continued struggle as state ethics regulators try to apply ethical rules that were often put in place well before the creation of the Internet to the Internets newest applications such as sites like these. A new ethics ruling out of South Carolina reflects just this struggle.

It’s a given attorneys are responsible for the ethical compliance of their advertising. That is, if you place an advertisement you have to be sure it conforms to the applicable ethical rules. What rules apply is a whole other issue.

But what about listings on Avvo, or Martindale-Hubbell? Are those listings third party information, or are they more like ads? Well according to the Ethics Advisory Committee of the South Carolina Bar, lawyers who “claim” their listing on these websites, become responsible for ensuring that the content on the listing is accurate and in conformity with the advertising and other ethical rules. Here’s the problem though: even if a lawyer claims their profile that does not mean that they control all of the material on it. For example most of these sites, allow third parties to make comments about the attorney. Those commenting might be other attorneys or current or former clients.

The South Carolina opinion makes very clear that while websites may post informational listings about lawyers without their knowledge or consent. Once a lawyer, however, participates in the listing, the rules change. “By claiming a website listing, a lawyer takes responsibility for its content and is then ethically required to conform the listing to all applicable rules,” the opinion said. That means that if a client posts a testimonial about how wonderful his or her lawyer was, depending on the jurisdiction, the lawyer might need to either have the testimonial removed or ensure that it has the proper disclaimer. So here are some one of the many unanswered questions – If a lawyer is now required to monitor the web sites that talk about him or her, how often must he or she do it? Once a week, a day, an hour? If the website is now considered an advertisement, because the lawyer “claimed” it, when does a change in the web site require a resubmission of the site for the states that require advertising submissions? What if the change was only to a section the lawyer does not control and that does not implicate the applicable ethical rules?