Select Page
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...
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 7

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 7

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Perhaps the most obvious ethical conflict for a lawyer involved with social media is how that lawyer’s online presence might conflict with the Model Rules on Attorney Advertising.  Comment 3 to Rule 7.2 recognizes that...
Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 6

Social Networking: A Legal Ethics Minefield – Part 6

ARE THERE OTHER BENEFITS TO USING SOCIAL NETWORKING? Social networking sites have been an invaluable tool for many attorneys performing research on already contested matters.   For instance, if a matrimonial attorney wishes to view the Facebook page of a client’s...