• Maintaining client a client forfeited a

confidentiality** or, substantial settlement when

* confidentiality issues his daughter violated the
confidentiality term in the
settlement agreement by
posting details about it on
Facebook

a lawyer who revealed

confidential client
information on a public blog
for the purpose of defending
against accusations in a
client’s public negative
online review of the lawyer
was reprimanded for that
conduct. The responsive
information went beyond
what was needed to
respond to the accusations.

Another case involved a

lawyer publishing client
confidences on a public
blog. The lawyer was
suspended for 60 days
because the blog discussed
her clients — all criminal
defendants — in an
identifiable way, and
because she revealed
confidential (and
detrimental) information
about some of them.

• The inadvertent creation of

client-attorney
relationships**

• Advertising and 2. Attorneys may There is no clear boundary

marketing*** connect with clients and between the use of social
former clients. networking media for purely
social purposes and using
those services for marketing.
Using social networking for
marketing creates an entirely
different set of risks and
carries with it the potential
for abuse. In some instances,
social networking behavior
would be viewed as improper

• The unauthorized practice
of law***
• Conduct concerning
opponents, witnesses and
investigations
• Discovery
3. Attorneys may not
contact a represented person
through social networking
websites.
5. Attorneys may use
information on social
networking websites in a
dispute.
solicitation.
Extraterritorial and
unlicensed practice-of-law
issues exist because social
networking crosses state
lines (as well as international
borders). Some social
networking and, particularly,
blogging or participating in
chat rooms may subject an
attorney to claims of
unauthorized practice of law
in other jurisdictions if the
attorney provides state- or
federal-specific legal opinions
or advice and is not licensed
to practice in the state in
which a recipient participant
is located
cases where clients’
postings were held to be
discoverable, and in some
cases admissible in
litigation, as well as other
cases where discovery
requests for postings were
denied
Another emerging practice
that is becoming widespread
is conducting investigations
by using social networking
sites and, specifically, gaining
access to a witness’ or
adverse party’s social
networking page (e.g.,
Facebook or Myspace) to find
information to use on cross-
examination. There are
ethical considerations and
limitations on such use. For
example, trying to become
 friends with third parties
(opponents or witnesses) on
social media sites in order to
pursue investigations may
run afoul of rules governing
contact with such persons.

a Maryland court has

recognized that both
prosecutors and criminal
defense attorneys are
increasingly looking at social
media for potential evidence
and in its opinion, the court
considered it a “matter of
professional competence”
that lawyers take the time to
investigate social networking
sites in the performance of
due diligence.

• Proper communications From a practical

perspective, with a face-to-
face communication, or
even with a letter or a phone
call, we can take action
to correct an inaccurate
statement, retrieve a letter,
recall a statement or take
some other immediate
corrective action to cure any
perceived
miscommunication,
misunderstanding or
incorrect interpretation. In
contrast, Internet
communications have a life
of their own. The boundaries
are not as clear or as well
understood as the
boundaries we may
recognize in day-to-day real
life communications.
Internet communications
can easily be broadcast to
parts unknown and to
unintended audiences

• Communications and other 8. Attorneys may “Friending” between judges

conduct between attorneys generally endorse other and lawyers is also a source
and judges attorneys on social
networking websites.
10. Attorneys may
connect with judges on social
networking websites
provided the purpose is not
to influence the judge in
carrying out his or her official
duties.
* Solicitation 7. Attorneys may
generally comment or
respond to reviews or
endorsements, and may
solicit such endorsements.
* False/Misleading 6. Attorneys may
statements accept client reviews but
must monitor those reviews
for accuracy.
of concern. Currently there is
no consistency from state to
state on how “friending” with
judges is being, or will be,
treated.
With respect to
endorsements, an attorney
“has a duty to remove or
correct [an] inaccurate
endorsement” on a LinkedIn
page (such as when a
lawyer who practices only
criminal law is endorsed for
expertise in matters that do
not pertain to his or her
criminal law practice),
regardless of who posted
the endorsement.
because lawyers are
prohibited from making false
or misleading communication
about their services, the
tendency to engage in
hyperbole or make
exaggerated and
spontaneous “off the cuff”
remarks on a social
networking site may create
unintended ethical
consequences.
while a client or third party
may describe a lawyer’s
services however they wish,
the Rules of Professional
Conduct do govern the
efforts by lawyers to
circumvent the rules through
the acts of others.
Particularly difficult issues
arise if a third party makes
statements about a lawyer or
 firm that the lawyer or firm
themselves could not make.
Assuming such a testimonial
is unsolicited by the attorney,
statements made in such a
testimonial still raise the
concern of whether some
type of a disclaimer is
required to indicate that the
testimonial is unsolicited.

9. Attorneys may
review a juror’s Internet
presence.

1. Attorneys may advise  a lawyer was disciplined

clients about the content of
their social networking
websites, including the
removal or addition of
information.
when he advised a client to
delete damaging photos
from Facebook and also
withheld evidence about the
photos and their deletion

4. Although attorneys
may contact an
unrepresented person
through social networking
websites, they may not use a
pretextual basis for viewing
otherwise private
information on social
networking websites.