ethicS & onLinereviewS : torePLY , ornottorePLY : thatiStheQueStion : Partiiofii
Professionalism & ethics Committee Chairs : AnthonyGarcia – GarciaMediation & LindseyGuinand – TheFloridaBar
In our last article , we explored Scenario A , the options for responding or not responding to positive online reviews . We will now explore Scenario B , delving into the complications that may arise when a third party writes a critique of the lawyer . Technically , a lawyer only has ethical obligations to their client . However , it is still important to appear professional online . In addition to a proper image , a response to the stranger may reveal details that could break the expected confidentiality with a client . Due to this danger , the American Bar Association 1 recommends that the lawyer only reply with a statement that says the person posting is “ not a client or former client , as the lawyer owes no ethical duties to the person posting in that circumstance .” To steer clear of violating the attorney-client privilege , the lawyer may consider pursuing consent from the client before posting a reply , “ particularly where responding might be in the client or former client ’ s best interests .”
Situations like the ones above are difficult to navigate due to the complexity of attorney-client privilege . The third portion of this article will analyze the best response to a negative comment made directly by a client- perhaps the most difficult scenario in this series .
Aside from Broadway ’ s “ The Producers ,” Bialystock and Bloom , nobody ever enjoys a gut wrenching , heart pounding , negative review . Let ’ s explore the techniques encouraged to implement when replying in Scenario C : an unfavorable online review made directly by a client . The attorney has several options in this scenario :
1 . Do not reply , as engaging with the client could lead to violations of confidentiality or provoke additional online criticism . Instead , ask the platform to delete the comment .
2 . Reply with an invitation to meet with the client to resolve any issues from the posted feedback .
3 . Respond with a general statement declaring your disagreement with the online allegation , but not disclosing case details .
The American Bar Association first advocates for lawyers to not reply to online negative feedback . Any response could be used against the attorney in arguments about the violation of attorney-client privilege . Florida Bar Ethics
navigatingtheworldof technologywhilestaying loyaltotheoathsand standardsofprofessional conductcanfeellikea walkonarazor ’ sedge , butwithdisciplineand practice , youtoocanglide throughwithoutascratch .
Opinion 21-1 2 states that a general response could indicate that the events are not “ accurately portrayed ” which demonstrates the attorneys ’ participation in the events mentioned , “ which could disclose confidential client information .” Instead , the attorney could submit a request to delete the remark to the platform . Therefore , option one ensures no confidential information will be disclosed .
The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 20-01 3 states that the attorney can reply if the counsel feels it is best to address the comment . The ABA Formal Opinion 496 4 promotes a reply consisting of an invitation to contact the lawyer directly to resolve the conflict . No content of the meeting should be in the response , but the act of the attorney devising a solution may appeal to online viewers and future clients .
Option three explores the situation where the attorney implements a general response . However , any response may not contain any information that discloses details of the case , in order to avoid any violation of Rule 4-1.6 Confidentiality of Information . A more in-depth
continuedonpage59
5 8 J a n - F e b 2 0 2 4 | H C b a L a W Y e R