The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently issued an opinion addressing lawyers’ review of jurors’ internet presence distinguishing: (i) a “passive lawyer review” (i.e., a juror’s webpage is publicly available and the juror is unaware of lawyer’s review); (ii) an “active lawyer review” (i.e., the lawyer actually requests access to the juror’s […]
Massachusetts Bar Association Ethics Opinion 14-5 [Approved by the Massachusetts Bar Association’s House of Delegates on May 8, 2014] Topic: lawyer’s contact with unrepresented party via social network Summary: “A lawyer for a party may “friend” an unrepresented adversary in order to obtain information helpful to her representation from the adversary’s nonpublic website only when […]
Abstract: “The ban on solicitation by attorneys in ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3, and its state counterparts, has generally been used to prevent ambulance chasing by plaintiffs’ attorneys. However, a recent New York decision has raised the possibility that a defense lawyer could be disciplined for solicitation when offering his services to a […]
3 St. Mary’s Journal of Legal Malpractice & Ethics 204, 225, 228-29 (2013) The full text is available at: http://www.stmaryslawjournal…
South Carolina Lawyer 8 (January 2012) Author reviews the most important developments in professional ethics in 2011: (i) Advertising – Amendments to South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct; (ii) Advertising – Groupon and similar services; (iii) Advertising—Misrepresentation on websites; (iv) Appointments – Just compensation for legal services; (v) Appointments – Right to counsel in civil […]
Topic: Lawyer Friending Opposing Party From the Opinion: “Attorney’s request to be invited as a friend of Plaintiff’s Facebook/MySpace account would be a “communication” for purposes of Rule 4-4.2. Attorney may not send such a communication directly to plaintiff, in light of that rule”. Relevant Law: Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.2 The full text is […]
Professional Ethics Committee Topic: Hiring Private Investigator to “Friend” Opposing Party on Social Networking Sites From the Opinion: “In conclusion, in the Committee’s opinion, under the facts presented, a lawyer may not hire an investigator to “friend” an adverse party in litigation. to develop evidence to be used against that party”. Relevant Law: Connecticut Rule of […]
Topic: Lawyers’ Use of Social Networks Faced with the following inquiry: “May a lawyer access or otherwise use the social network site of a third person to benefit a client?” The Committee answered: “A lawyer may access or otherwise use the social network of a third person to benefit a client, as long as the conduct does […]