James Pressler

Social Media and Legal Professionalism Attorneys and those around them face challenging issues with regard to the pros and cons of how to best utilize new technology when running a business, serving clients, and promoting their profession. Im passionate about trial lawyering. I want people to know that being a lawyer isnt a paper pushing profession, but its about helping and fighting for clients, writes trial attorney Norm Pattis. He uses Twitter to provide a report from the trenches about his activities. Another attorney once responded to a Newsday article on a pending case via his blog and in retrospect considers it bad form to assume just because jurors arent supposed to; they wont come across such opinions. Other attorneys are blogging specifically only after a trial is complete. This is raising ethical considerations says Correy E. Stephenson, Pitfalls of blogging about cases, Lawyers USA, Mar./Apr. 2011, at 11. The business advantage of legal blogs is a never ending marketing seminar with potential clients; but, a fast response is unlikely to include required fine print, advertising laws require without adding a reference to an attorneys website disclaimers. Stephensons story goes on to recommend an attorney-host ethically remove flowery complements that solicitously cultivate his image. With an active conversation in process via tweets, face-booking, or blogging, an unintended attorney client relationship can form when specific advice is given about a specific problem. Around this issue, The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has posted its initial draft proposals on Lawyers Use of Technology and Client Development. Change under consideration to the Model Rules of Personal Conduct Rule 1.18, Duties to Prospective Client includes: (a) A person who discusses communicates with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship and has a reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to consider forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client. www.abanet.org/ethics2020 One blog includes the following Forum Rules in an effort to address the two-fold problem of solicitation issues and confusion over formation of attorney/client relationships: LawInfo.com Message boards is to engage in informative discussions with consumers facing the difficulties of dealing with their legal issues and the justice system by exchanging useful resources, offering direction, defining "Legalese" or just shedding some light on a confusing dilemmaFeel free to offer helpful appropriate resources

James Pressler

when replying to a message. Please note: messages which are blatant promotions, advertisements or solicitations will be deletedAll the information you access at LawInfo.com is general information and should not be misconstrued as actual legal advice. No attorney/client relationship is created by any interaction at LawInfo.com's chat boards. If you are a consumer, please contact a lawyer in your state to protect yourself. http://chat.lawinfo.com/register.php

The question anyone, especially a legal professional, should ask each time they go online and comment is whether a well intentioned opinion even made to a face-book-friend could have far reaching negative outcomes. Responsible hosting sites will require registration; so, it is safe to assume there could be personal accountability for detrimental reliance. Nevertheless, NFPAs EC-1.4(b) pushes paralegals to improve access to the legal system making blogging alluring. Blogging while withholding a clients name may be acceptable under The ABA Model Rules; but, the possibility of facts inferring the identity of a client may be reprehensible. It is possible to skirt accountability with a blog or tweet about a case by adhering to matters of public record infers Kevin OKeefe, founder and CEO of LexBlog. Posting opinions of a case in progress could fast become a violation of Model Rule 3.5; or, constitute jury tampering. Blogging about an ALJs pending arbitration could lead to a disciplinary hearing. It still appears to be risky business. A paralegals comments to a blog might run afoul of the NFPAs Model Rules 1.2 (b); or NALAs Canon 7, violating the ethical and contractual ties of the attorney to a client; or, revealing privileged work methodology. Paralegals must always preserve legal integrity to be of use to anyone by performing duties under full knowledge and direction of the supervising attorney as if he or she were there. In an effort to protect the public, paralegals must not exceed their authority by performing duties only capable of being implemented by an educated professional having the judgment to apply law to specific facts, McMackin v. McMackin, 651 A.2d 778 (Del.Fam Ct 1993). It would be even more difficult for a Facebooking paralegal than a blogging attorney, to determine when dissemination of legal advice via tweets and friends constitutes unauthorized practice of law. The speed and reach of social media does not often give time for thorough analysis by legal professionals who must always avoid the perils of irresponsible and unethical conduct.