Ethics opinions have to reflect the present and future- not the past

• Published in: ABA journal 2017-12, Vol.103 (12), p.1-3
• Main Author: Elefant, Carolyn
• Format: Magazinearticle
• Language: English
• Subjects: Advertising; Attorneys; Legal ethics
• ISSN: 0747-0088; 2162-7983

Because Noah always checks ratings before making a purchase, he's disconcerted about why he can't find any for his lawyer: State Bar of California Formal Opinion 2016-196 (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/CAL%202016-196%20[12-0006]%20Blogging.pdf) treats a blog as advertising that's subject to advertising rules if the attorney makes known their availability for service. [...]New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1132 (http://www.nysba.org/EthicsOpinion1132/) (2017) finds Avvo Answers and similar sites to constitute unethical fee splitting, as did a 2016 advisory opinion (https://www.scbar.org/lawyers/legal-resourcesinfo/ethics-advisory-opinions/eao/ethics-advisory-opinion-16-06/) from the South Carolina Bar. (/magazine/starting_law_firm/) As these examples bear out, the parade of horribles that regulators envision-fee splitting with nonlawyers injecting their interest into the attorney-client relationship, testimonials and reviews that might dupe clients into hiring an unqualified lawyer, making objective and useful information online available through a LinkedIn profile or a blog without prominently labeling it as advertising (I'm stumped to figure out what kind of harm that could ever cause)-doesn't intimidate today's clients at all. Read more ... (http://Www.abajournal.com/magazine/artide/legal_ethics_opinion_relevance/P1) Carolyn Elefant is an energy and eminent domain attorney based in Washington, D. C. She says blogging at MyShingle "has given me a bird's-eye view of the changes that have been roaring through the legal profession and an opportunity to chronicle and speak on these trends.