Select Page
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 11

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 11

Twitter, like many public-viewing social networking websites, is constructed so that those participants with the most “followers” gain the most attention from their posts, reach the most users, and are therefore seen as more knowledgeable, visible and important within...
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 10

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 10

The second problematic issue regarding social media as “advertising” and Model Rule 7.1 regards recommendations, endorsements and intentionally displayed social networking “connections” made by the lawyer.  When a lawyer invites such recommendations or online displays...
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 9

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 9

Given this explosion in online legal marketing through social networking, it is therefore clear why some attorneys might find such preclusive state-specific disclosures to be problematic.  Furthermore, an attorney whom is licensed in multiple states might not know...
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 8

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 8

For instance, because a single Twitter posting is limited to 140 characters in total, a lawyer may not be able to include the state-specific disclosure and disclaimer requirements within the 140 character limit – effectively limiting him from using the site as a...