• About the Author

    Dolores Dorsainvil
  • Recently…

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Ethics & Social Media

The legal profession is usually the last profession to adapt to new models with regard to business development. However, with the advent of the internet and the far-reaching effects of various social media platforms, more and more lawyers are finding innovative avenues to use these platforms in their business models.

Social media is a great marketing tool that has many benefits. What’s not to love? It is an inexpensive way to provide exposure, to give lawyers name recognition, and most importantly, it generates clients. For example, lawyers are creating attorney blogs to share relevant information about their practice and recent developments in the law. Lawyers are also using platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook to share information about updates in their law firm. These updates include firm announcements, speaking engagements, sponsorships, successes, or any upcoming legal or community service events.  Social media can provide another form of easy access for a lawyer to communicate with other lawyers in similar professional circles, with clients, as well as with friends and family. Additionally, social media is also an easy way to perform basic due diligence and legal research when a lawyer desires additional information about an opposing party, a potential witness, opposing counsel, or any other third parties.

BusinesswomanLawyers however, must be mindful of the pitfalls associated with social media that could result in the violation of the ethical Rules. An attorney, when making a post to a social media platform may expose confidential or proprietary information. This is especially common when a lawyer posts information about a recent success in a matter such as a favorable verdict, or when a lawyer shares an anecdote about their challenges either in court, with opposing counsel, or with a difficult client. These type of posts are unauthorized disclosures and violate a lawyer’s duty to keep a client’s matter confidential as stated in Rule 1.6 which states that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, or unless there is an exception to the Rule.

Lawyers also must adhere to their jurisdiction’s ethical Rules that deal with lawyer advertising. Lawyers must only make truthful statements that are not misleading in their advertisements and these statements cannot create an unjustified expectation about the results that the lawyer can achieve for a prospective client. See Rule 7.1. For example, a statement such as “I’ve won every jury trial I’ve ever had” may be technically true but in order for a prospective client to appreciate a lawyer’s skill-set it would be important to know that the lawyer has only had 3 jury trials. Similarly, it is a violation of the Rules to create a Facebook page where you state your firm name, i.e. “Smith & Associates” if in fact you are a solo practitioner and do not have any associates within your firm. Lastly, a lawyer should be aware that although social media makes transmission of information effortless and easier, lawyers are still prohibited from soliciting prospective clients through real-time electronic contact. See Rule 7.2.

In conclusion, social media is clearly more than just a fad. However, lawyers must exercise careful judgment when using these tools and should be aware of the issues that may arise from its use. With that said, a careful review of the ethical Rules is critical to a lawyer’s understanding of how to effectively and properly use social media platforms.


Update on the ABA's Ethics 20/20 Commission

The American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics 20/20, the group commissioned in 2009 by then ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, to thoroughly review the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and to make necessary recommendations to revise those rules as they apply to the evolution of the legal profession as it relates to advances in technology and the globalization of the practice, has concluded its work and has made significant recommendations for revisions to the Model Rules.

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 met at the ABA 2013 Mid-year meeting in Dallas, Texas in early February and the Commission successfully rallied support for sponsorship for four of its Resolutions (including support from the Young Lawyers Division for the Resolutions involving foreign lawyers).  As a result of the support as evidenced by several co-sponsorships, the ABA House of Delegates on February 11, 2013, adopted all four of the Commission’s final Resolutions. Three of those Resolutions involved a highly controversial issue – the limited practice authority for inbound foreign lawyers to practice in the United States.  The Resolutions are:

Resolution Revised 107A now amends Rule 5.5(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law) to permit foreign lawyers to serve as in-house counsel in the U.S., but with the added requirement that foreign lawyers not advise on U.S. law except in consultation with a U.S.-licensed lawyer;

Resolution Revised 107B now amends the ABA Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel to permit foreign lawyers to serve as in-house counsel in the U.S. but with added requirements ;

Resolution 107C now amends the ABA Model Rule on Pro Hac Vice Admission to provide judges with guidance about whether to grant limited and temporary practice authority to foreign lawyers to appear in U.S. courts; and

Resolution 107D amends the Comment to ABA Model Rule 8.5 to permit lawyers and clients to agree which conflict of interest rules govern the representation.

Congratulations to the Commission for three years of hard work which resulted in phenomenal changes to the rules which governs our conduct. The Commission, in its earlier Resolutions to the House which are now adopted as of August 2012, recommended several changes as they relate to technology and now has addressed the globalization of the practice which will now allow for lawyers to provide more services to clients whose needs may not be limited to our jurisdictional borders.

How does this effect Maryland? We shall soon see if our court adopts similar provisions in the Maryland Lawyers’ Rule of Professional Conduct.

Read more about the work of the Commission on the ABA website.

Dolores Dorsainvil is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Office of Bar Counsel and is an Adjunct Professor of Law at American University’s Washington College of Law where she teaches Legal Ethics.

Unauthorized Practice of Law in Maryland Draws Reprimand

This just in from the Maryland Court of Appeals: a newly practicing attorney who is admitted in New York but not in Maryland was found to have engaged in the practice of law out of a Maryland office.  The court held that the attorney violated Rule 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) when he represented his federal immigration clients in Maryland state tort law (personal injury) cases.  The Maryland Court of Appeals concluded that aspects of the attorney’s practice constituted the unauthorized practice of law and related ethical violations.  The court states that, “[it] appears to be that of an inexperienced attorney who became licensed in 2009 (in New York), and without any prior experience with lawyering in any jurisdiction, wanted to open a practice dedicated solely to the practice of immigration law. He got in trouble when he attempted to assist immigration clients in areas of the law he was not permitted to practice in this state. There is absolutely no evidence that he was attempting to solicit clients for representation in matters of Maryland law.” The court imposed a reprimand.  A concurring dissenting opinion would impose a 30 day suspension for the misconduct. Read the Court’s opinion at:




%d bloggers like this: