Indiana legal marketing professionals have probably heard of the issues surrounding the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in April 2014 In the Matter of: Anonymous, 45S00-1301-DI-33. This case involved the application of the Rules of Professional Conduct in marketing a legal practice on a third party website to generate cases for the firm’s personal injury practice.
The court action ended with the attorney receiving a private reprimand. Shortly after, he was no longer anonymous. The Indiana Lawyer newspaper reported on this case. The paper shared that the lawyer in question was Tim Kelly. Kelly used the third-party website Law Tigers to promote his practice. While this case deals with an Indiana attorney, the story is pertinent to attorneys and legal marketers all across the United States.
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission ultimately found that Kelly violated Rule 7.1 for false and misleading communications regarding services and Rule 7.2 (c) for failing to include an office address in a public communication.
The issue related to “false and misleading communications” centered on information focused on settlements, verdicts, or testimonials that were found on the Law Tigers website. Much of the information on the website was non-specific and did not refer to a specific attorney or law firm. Rather, the testimonials referred to Law Tigers’ ability to give them their “fair share of justice.” However, the court’s decision noted that while website did not specifically disclose that the testimonials relate to the Respondent, it also did not disclose that the testimonials did not relate to the Respondent either. The court reasoned that the average viewer of the website would not be able to differentiate between the organization (Law Tigers) and the Respondent (Kelly). Rule 7.2 (c) requires that a firm include its physical address in public communication. The Law Tigers had links to Kelly’s firm website but failed to list the physical address of the firm anywhere.
Legal marketing is still a young practice and full of challenges. The Internet has opened a whole new avenue for marketers to reach their audience in hopes of gaining new business. The Rules of Professional Conduct were established long before the Internet existed, and while they have been updated to include digital communications, there are still a lot of questions left unanswered about how an attorney can and cannot use this media. The court could have used the opportunity with Anonymous to provide additional guidance related to marketing to the thousands of other attorneys across the state.
The lesson legal marketers should take away from Anonymous is the importance of regularly reviewing the Rules of Professional conduct with all marketing staff and attorneys along with establishing an approval process for communications within the firm. Having a second or third set of eyes to review a marketing piece, blog post, or other advertisement can go a long way to ensure the firm and its attorneys are not in violation of advertising or ethics rules.
While the matter of Anonymous is an Indiana case, it highlights the importance of the Rules of Professional Conduct in law firm marketing. While these rules vary from state to state, many are the same. This case can serve as a great starting point for conversations with law firm management to ensure that your firm’s marketing efforts are within the rules of your state.
Jaime Lira is the marketing manager at Cohen & Malad, LLP. She works with more than 20 attorneys who handle Plaintiff work in the areas of class action, personal injury, medical malpractice, family law, and business services and litigation. She can be reached at jlira@cohenandmalad.com