Ethical social media marketing for lawyers june 20


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Make sure you website is designed for mobile access. This is becoming more and more important with the rise of the mobile workforce.
  • You already have a reputation, so why not build it online with the world as your audience. You are no longer limited to a specific demographic just because you physically may live in one area.
  • UsingHashtags, engaged presentations.
  • Video Bios and YouTube ChannelsBlogging, Blogging, BloggingHaving conversations on Twitter Engaging on LinkedInCreating Social Business Strategies for Their Practices
  • Talk about how to turn off the updates in the settings.
  • I am not a lawyer, this is based on research from the trenches and experience with clients. I am not an ethics guru.
  • ABA Model Rules About Legal ServicesRule 7.2 Advertising(a) Subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media.(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services except that a lawyer may(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule;(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority;(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and(4) refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement.(c) Any communication made pursuant to this rule shall include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.
  • employees of the Hamptons Sheriff’s Office in Virginia who were fired by Sheriff BJ Roberts, sued claiming they were fired for having supported an opposing candidate in a local election. Two of the plaintiffs had “liked” the opposing candidate’s Facebook page, which they claimed was an act of constitutionally protected speech. A federal district court in Virginia, however, ruled that a Facebook “like” “. . . is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection”; according to the court, “liking” involves no actual statement, and constitutionally protected speech could not be inferred from “one click of a button.”This case explored the increasinglyimportant intersection of free speech and social media with the court finding that a “like” was insufficient to warrant constitutional protection. The decision has provoked much criticism, and it will be interesting to see whether other courts will follow the Bland court’s lead or take a different approach.
  • California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey enacted legislation that prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring an employee or applicant to disclose a user name or password for his or her personal social media account.Such legislation will likely become more prevalent in 2013; Texas has a similar proposed bill, and California has proposed a bill that would expand its current protections for private employees to also include public employees
  • saw the settlement of one case, and continued litigation in two other cases, all involving the ownership of business-related social media accounts maintained by current or former employees. In the settled case of PhoneDog LLC v. Noah Kravitz, employer sued employee after the employee left the company but retained a Twitter account (and its 17,000 followers) that he had maintained while working for the employer. The terms of the settlement are confidential, but news reports indicated that the settlement allowed the employee to keep the account and its followers.In two other pending cases, Eagle v. EdcommandMaremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group LTD, social media accounts originally created by employees were later altered or used by the employer without the employees’ consent.These cases are reminders that, with the growing prevalence of business-related social media, employers need to create clear policies regarding the treatment of work-related social media accounts.
  • fall Richmond criminal defense lawyer Horace Hunter was hit with a public reprimand by the Virginia Bar for blogging about his own cases and not including an ‘advertising disclaimer’ on his blog.As reported by Bob Ambrogi yesterday, the Portsmouth Circuit Court overturned the finding of misconduct as it pertained to blogging about Hunter’s cases.The panel ruled that a lawyer has a First Amendment right to blog about his own cases, at least with regard to information that is already available on the public record. (Needless to say, you should never blog about privileged client information.)The court did uphold the Bar’s ruling that an advertising disclaimer was required on Hunter’s blog and that Hunter may not reveal client confidences on his blog.Legal ethics guru, Attorney Will Hornsby, cautions not to give to much weight to the Hunter outcome as its findings may not apply to all states.So, the question becomes whether a lawyer may blog, or otherwise communicate information in advertising material, about the representation if that information is otherwise publically known or available. Here’s the problem with coming to that conclusion – the states have different standards governing the lawyer’s obligation to maintain information confidential. Virginia and a minority of states have an ethics rule (usually Rule 1.6) that requires a lawyer to maintain “secrets and confidences.” On the other hand, Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the majority of states that have adopted it require that a lawyer not reveal “information relating to the representation.”Seemingly, “information relating to the representation” is far broader than “secrets and confidences” in the marketing arena. If information is public knowledge, it is hardly a secret. However, “information relating to the representation” clearly, in my mind, covers information that is publically available. It is the client’s right that the lawyer not reveal information. Under either version of the rule, the client may provide consent for the lawyer to reveal the information. But, that decision rests with the client, and in the Model Rules states, that decision is designed to extend to information that may otherwise be publically known.
  • ABA Model RulesTransactions With Persons Other Than ClientsRule 4.2 Communication With Person Represented By CounselIn representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
  • Facts: Attorney has a personal profile page on a social media website. Attorney regularly posts comments about both her personal life and professional practice on her personal profile page. Only individuals whom the Attorney has approved to view her personal page may view this content (in Facebook parlance, whom she has “friended”).2/Attorney has about 500 approved contacts or “friends,” who are a mix of personal and professional acquaintances, including some persons whom Attorney does not even know.#1 – Not a violation - In the Committee’s opinion, this statement, standing alone, is not a communication under rule 1-400(a) because it is not a message or offer “concerning the availability for professional employment,” whatever Attorney’s subjective motive for sending it.11/ Attorney status postings that simply announce recent victories without an accompanying offer about the availability for professional employment generally will not qualify as a communication.#2 – Violation - Similarly, the statement “Another great victory in court today!” standing alone is not a communication under rule 1-400(a) because it is not a message or offer “concerning the availability for professional employment.” However, the addition of the text, “[w]ho wants to be next?” meets the definition of a “communication” because it suggests availability for professional employment. Thus, it is subject to rule 1-400(D) and rule 1-400’s Standards.#3 – Violation - In the Committee’s opinion, this language also qualifies as a “communication” because the words “tell your friends to check out my website,” in this context, convey a message or offer “concerning the availability for professional employment.” It appears that Attorney is asking the reader to tell others to look at her website so that they may consider hiring her. This language therefore is subject to the adverse presumption in rule 1-400(E), Standard 5 (e.g., it must contain the word “Advertisement” or a similar word) and the preservation requirement in rule 1-400(F).1#4 – Violation - Again, the Committee concludes that this posting is a “communication” under rule 1-400(A), due primarily to the second sentence. A communication has to include an offer about availability for professional employment so the “free” consultation language at first might indicate the posting is not a communication. Yet the rule does not limit “communications” to messages seeking financial compensation for services. #5 – Not a violation - In this instance, we believe the statement does not concern “availability for professional employment.” The attorney is merely relaying information regarding an article that she has published, and is offering to provide copies
  • This is where we can discuss - Can lawyers answer questions on Quora, LawPivot or Avvo? are all over the place. According to Nancy Myrland.At High Tech Intellectual Property Legal Blog, California lawyer Judith Szepesi takes the position that these endorsements do not violate Model Rule 7.1 because they are not statements by the lawyer about his or her own skills. She adds, however, that under California’s rules, these endorsements may constitute testimonials and require the lawyer’s LinkedIn profile to carry a disclaimer.I am no ethics expert. However, I think it is significant that LinkedIn provides the ability to “hide” endorsements others have given you. (You can hide any single endorsement or choose to hide all endorsements by default.) If someone gives you an endorsement that you believe is false or misleading, and if you do not remove it, then you are effectively accepting it and allowing it to be communicated to anyone who views your LinkedIn profile. To my mind, that brings it within the purview of Model Rule 7.1.Specialization for ABAInformation About Legal ServicesRule 7.4 Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization(a) A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law.(b) A lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation "Patent Attorney" or a substantially similar designation.(c) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation "Admiralty," "Proctor in Admiralty" or a substantially similar designation.(d) A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless:(1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate state authority or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and(2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.Information About Legal ServicesRule 7.3 Solicitation of Clients(a)  A lawyer shall not by in‑person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:(1)  is a lawyer; or(2)  has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.(b)  A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in‑person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if:(1)  the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or(2)  the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.(c)   Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from anyone known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2).(d)   Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses in‑person or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan.
  • to Wikipedia - legal advice is the giving of a formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law, usually received from a solicitor, barrister or lawyer, ordinarily in exchange for financial or other tangible compensation. Advice given without remuneration is normally referred to as being pro bono publico (in the public good), or colloquially, pro bono.With the advent of the internet, many services have been established to provide individuals the power to conduct their own legal research or prepare their own legal documents. Some companies have taken it a step further by offering answers to legal questions directly through their web services.
  • This is tricky because of eDiscovery and you would not want to remove information for failure to preserve. Once it’s out there, it’s out there. Especially on social media sites. Someone could easily screep cap or capture a shared post or update. HOWEVER, depending on the facts of the case it could be a possibility. There is no solid guidance on this, so based on the facts of the case and the desired ruling, the answer would be, it depends.
  • The Standing Committee on Advertising (Florida Bar) is of the opinion that a page on a networking site is sufficiently similar to a website of a lawyer or law firm that pages on networking sites are not required to be filed with The Florida Bar for review.
  • FLORIDA BAR RULESLawyers who post information to Twitter whose postings are generally accessible are subject to the lawyer advertising regulations set forth in Rule 4-7.2 as above. A lawyer may post information via Twitter and may restrict access to the posts to the lawyer’s followers, who are persons who have specifically signed up to receive posts from that lawyer. If access to a lawyer’s Twitter postings is restricted to the followers of the particular lawyer, the information posted there is information at the request of a prospective client and is not subject to the lawyer advertising rules under Rule 4-7.1(h). The information remains subject to the general misconduct rule, which prohibits any conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation under Rules 4-7.1(i) and 4-8.4(c). Any communications that a lawyer makes on an unsolicited basis to prospective clients to obtain “followers” is subject to the lawyer advertising rules, as with any other social media as noted above.
  • In 1996 Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.  Section 230 grants interactive internet service providers (such as Facebook, Yelp, YouTube, and Twitter) immunity from civil defamation claims for user-created content.What this means in simple terms is that if you or your business is defamed on Facebook or Twitter, you can’t sue Facebook or Twitter, and you can’t force Facebook or Twitter to remove the defamatory postings.  Section 230 forces you to attempt to track down the user who originally posted the speech—often a virtual impossibility in this day and age when the vast majority of defamatory postings on the internet are done anonymously.
  • Lawyer must remove content that violates rules. Example:A comment on a facebook page A comment on a LinkedIn status updateIf he or she can’t remove it, ask the party to do so. If the party doesn’t remove it, lawyer isn’t liable
  • Ethical social media marketing for lawyers june 20

    1. 1. Video Bios & YouTube Channels Engaging on LinkedIn & Twitter Publishing Content Via Blogs
    2. 2. • Their clients are using LinkedIn. According to Kevin O’Keefe, 9 out of 10 use executives often. • Clients and potential clients want to research you on LinkedIn. • It’s known as the “business” social network and people are joining at a rate of two people per second.
    3. 3.  Professional picture you wouldn’t mind your grandmother seeing  A catchy headline that describes your practice  Utilize your summary section and include keywords describing the type of work you want (SEO)  Add all of your contact information  Customize your URL  Add your previous employment and education  Join some groups
    4. 4. • Keep up to date regarding news and current events • Network with colleagues, potential clients and referral sources • Share your blog posts, 3rd party articles and other interesting content to build expert reputation • Engage in real time conversation
    5. 5. • The number one source of work is word-of-mouth referrals and recommendations. Your Facebook network is full of family, friends, school chums, colleagues, etc. • You can easily share work related content a couple times a week so if the need arises for your services, your name comes to mind. • You should create a Facebook Page for your firm at the very least.
    6. 6. • It has become the second largest social network. • The audience is different than the other social channels. • You can create Communities. • It helps with your Author Rank and establishes Authorship.
    7. 7. • All you to easily filter conversations based on your interests. • You have the ability to schedule posts during the week when you have the time to manage your accounts. • You can access these on your mobile devices for quick easy reading, sharing and having those conversations.
    8. 8. PhoneDog LLC v Noah Kravitz Employer-employee litigation over ownership of social media accounts
    9. 9. Virginia Court: First Amendment protection for lawyer-bloggers
    10. 10. Can lawyers friend a judge on Facebook? AND Is being connected to opposing counsel a problem?
    11. 11. California Rules of Professional Conduct
    12. 12. Attorney may post information about her practice on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media websites, but those postings may be subject to compliance with rule 1-400 if their content can be considered to be “concerning the availability for professional employment.” Such communications also may be subject to the relevant sections of California Business and Professions Code sections 6157 et seq. CONCLUSION
    13. 13. Do LinkedIn Endorsements Violate Legal Ethics?
    14. 14. What constitutes dispensing advice on social channels?
    15. 15. Can a lawyer advise a client in litigation to delete their profile?
    16. 16. Internet Defamation—What Can You Do When You Are the Target?
    17. 17. List of Dont’s
    18. 18. Mobile State Bar Apps Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Virginia and more recently Arizona
    19. 19. References •!OpenDocument • • • onduct_table_of_contents.html • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
    20. 20. Natalie Alesi LegalersWelcome, Inc. m. 609.447.1020 Connect with me Blog LinkedIn Facebook Google+ Twitter Samantha Collier Social Media for Law Firms & Shift Digital Connect with me Blog LinkedIn Facebook Google+ Twitter Thank YOU