Comments on: 12 Social Media Ethics Issues for Lawyers

By: Debra L. Bruce

Debra L. Bruce — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:44:14 +0000

In response to Jonathan’s question about how states define the “requisite prior relationship” with the tweeter: the rules vary some from state to state, but usually require that direct contact not be initiated by the lawyer unless the person is a family member or a prior client. As a reminder, the rules in question relate to contact for pecuniary gain following a specific incident.

So the relationship of a mere Twitter follower is not the type that would be sufficient to allow the lawyer to contact someone directly. Tweeting generally about being willing to take on representation or posting something on a website, would not be considered unethical contact in most states. It would, however, be considered advertising in most, and subject to the advertising rules.

By: Chuck Newton

Chuck Newton — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:32:20 +0000

Wes talks about the bar-tenders, as I like to call them. Many are my friends and I do a lot of work for the Texas Bar, which is a unified bar. To to say that it and any group is not concerned with the status quo is an understatement. That was the reason in the 1990 I was one of the ones that had to bring suit in the Texas Supreme Court and then the federal court over lawyer advertising rules in the State. We got many of them overturned but, sadly, not all.

By: wesclark

wesclark — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:03:04 +0000

[sarcasm] We all know that the profession couldn’t continue to exist without the endless promulgation of new rules for every aspect of practicing law. [/sarcasm]

All too often it seems as though the Bar’s goal IS to paralyze lawyers, or at least build a wall around traditional practices by working to disallow useful innovation in order to protect the establishment. I say we get rid of the state-sponsored monopolies altogether and let the market sort it out. There’s no need for the point of a gun (the state) to decide who can be a lawyer or how such a person can conduct their business. Oh, I know, I’m a dreamer but I can’t let reality get in the way of logic.

By: Carolyn Elefant

Carolyn Elefant — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:01:56 +0000

I don’t think this is an example of law being behind technology – rather, it’s a case of bars needlessly making new rules when most existing rules would suffice. As I’ve explained in my upcoming book on Social Media for Lawyers with Nicole Black, social media changes the medium, not the message. A substance only blog is no different from a lawyer writing a journal article or informational Q&A for a local newspaper – the latter has never been considered advertising, so it’s not clear why the former would be. Talking loudly about your strategy for a criminal case on a cell phone in a public place would violate the rules on confidentiality – and it’s no different if the conversation takes place on Facebook or Twitter. Linked In profiles are no different from Martindale Hubbell listings – yet no one ever thought to subject those to advertising rules (Martindale let lawyers list specializations also). The real problem isn’t that the law hasn’t kept pace, rather, the bar has jumped the gun, moving into the fray to address fact specific scenarios where it’s unnecessary because existing rules apply just fine. If we wait for the bars to address every fact specific scenario, lawyers will be paralyzed given the pace at which new applications are emerging every day.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:55:16 +0000

Very interesting article. It raises several questions regarding the laws being so far behind the technology.

Your point number 6 I found quite intriguing. I wonder how state define the requisite prior relationship with the tweeter? For instance, would an attorney be able to DM tweet the tweeter if they were already following the attorney on Twitter? Would that constitute the requisite prior relationship with the tweeter?

Most businesses, attorney’s included, are integrating blogs, twitter, facebook and other social mediums into their websites.

Going to be quite interesting to see if and how the regulations change and adapt to this ever-changing digital world we live in.