South Carolina to Lawyers: Don't Answer, Don't Tell.

There's a website called "justanswer.com" that permits folks to ask questions on about anything, including law, for a fee. Then an "expert" provides an answer.  Can a lawyer participate?

South Carolina's recent bar opinion on that question (and answer) are here.  Here is the summary:

 

The website’s use of testimonials, endorsements, the word “expert,” and other misleading statements prohibit Lawyer’s participation. The site invites specific questions about specific legal matters and offers specific legal advice but uses buried small-type statements to attempt to disclaim the creation of attorney- client relationships and to warn against reliance on the advice. The Committee believes Lawyer’s participation under these circumstances would be improper.

As to legal information websites in general, if a website complies with all communications and advertising rules, Lawyer could participate in such a program but with specific caution against inadvertently forming an attorney-client relationship by offering more than basic information of general applicability. Where legal advice is provided, it is improper for Lawyer to accept compensation from the website provider without complying with Rule 1.8(f).

Sounds about right to me.

Comments

[Judith_IP]

What's your take on LinkedIn's Answers, or Avvo's similar feature? I believe even Martindale-Hubbell now has something along these lines.

Do you think it's useful/necessary to include the disclaimer about attorney-client relationships if you are providing answers/advice? Or is the more prominent disclaimers on these larger sites sufficient?

[David Hricik]

I wish I KNEW the answer to that. Clearly, more conspicuous is better, but I didn't know that LinkedIn or Avvo had those features (I am still figuring out how to use Facebook).

But... if I give you legal advice and say "I haven't given you legal advice," which matters more? You ask me "what is the statute of limitations for the car wreck I was in in Charleston last week" and I tell you "3 years" and it turns out it's 1, and your claim becomes barred, can I really defend for lack of a/c relationship because there was a big disclaimer?

Remember that artist who drew pictures of smoking pipes with the words, "this is not a pipe" (in French)?

[Judith_IP]

LinkedIn has a very system. In fact, it has two systems.

There is "Answers" for which you get "Expertise" (http://www.linkedin.com/answers). There are questions and answers in all categories, but it is particularly active in the legal areas.

There are also Groups, which permit "Discussions" many of which are on legal topics and definitely include the asking and answering of legal questions.

I cannot believe that LinkedIn hasn't investigated this question, given that they are now a publicly traded company. Now I'm going to go meta and ask, at LinkedIn, about the implications of the Answers system at LinkedIn.

[David Hricik]

It is interesting. On the one hand, with LinkedIn, theoretically at least you have a more sophisticated group, and no payment for the advice, which would tend to reduce the need for disclaimers/control because there would be less likelihood of reliance/a-c relationship.

I'll be curious if you learn anything. I have a LinkedIn account, but have never managed to figure out how to do anything other than accept "link" requests, or whatever they call them...

[Judith_IP]

In case you a curious, here is what I posted on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=989135&askerID=924404&browseIdx=0&sik=

[David Hricik]

Wow, I would not agree with a number of those observations. Some of them state the problem: someone gives advice without knowing all the necessary facts.

Thank you.