The South Carolina bar association addressed a hypothetical website that listed attorneys without their involvement, and allows "clients" and others to "rate" the attorney. The bar association held that a lawyer could claim his listing in this service, but that all comments made about him were subject to the advertising rules. "[A]ll content in a claimed listing must conform to" the advertising rules, so held the opinion. It also basically says a lawyer can't solicit improper endorsements, and so on.
Frankly, this one baffles me. I can understand why you can't ask someone to say something about you that you can't yourself say, because of Rule 8.4, but am I really under an obligation to make sure non-clients comply with the lawyer advertising rules? Stay tuned, but in the meanwhile, you South Carolina lawyers better go read your various listings, I suppose including Face book!
It's not online yet, but presumably shortly will be here. If you want a copy, email me at hricik_d@law.mercer.edu
There's an irony here that only a Very Old Person would remember. During the early efforts to persuade the bar that lawyer advertising was good policy both for clients and for the profession, a principal argument against advertising was that the proper way for clients to choose lawyers was from hearing praise from satisfied clients. Apparently, that is now an evil that has to be stamped out.
Posted by: Monroe Freedman | October 26, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Nor would we want clients to exercise their First Amendment rights, would we...
Posted by: David Hricik | October 26, 2009 at 03:47 PM
I wonder if this would be preempted by 47 USC 230. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/10/a_fuller_defens.htm Eric.
Posted by: Eric Goldman | October 26, 2009 at 08:32 PM