Web Protection
Personal Solicitation & Video
Personal Solicitation
Because personal solicitation by attorneys is subject to the most extensive state regulation, including the possibility of an outright ban (discussed supra), the attorney with Internet access must avoid any activity that would be construed as the personal solicitation of clients. Thus, the attorney should avoid the appearance of solicitation using any Internet tools that involve real-time personal communication with potential clients, such as chat rooms, Internet phone service or other audio, or video conferencing. These issues will become even more important as the capabilities of the Internet increase in the near future.
The attorney might also wish to avoid first contacting potential clients via e-mail, because of the possibility that any resulting e-mail dialog would be construed as "personal solicitation." Thus, the attorney should avoid mass-emailings, otherwise known as spam. Also, posting solicitation advertisements on Usenet groups or listservs, while a violation of netiquitte, might also open up the possibility of charges of personal solicitation, and therefore such activity should be avoided.
One attorney was disciplined in the State of Tennessee for posting an advertisement (see excerpt) that violated a number of state rules. For example, the ad was not identified as an advertisement, the ad was at the recipients expense (since viewers pay by the hour for access to read postings, that was viewed at the recipients expense), no specialist disclaimer was included, and a copy of the ad was not delivered to the Board of Professional Responsibility prior to distribution, as required. The attorney was eventually disbarred. See In re Laurence A. Canter.
However, it is unlikely that many of the other most commonly utilized tools of the Internet, such as the typical web page or the use of e-mail when instigated by clients, will be considered personal solicitation by the vast majority of the states or nations of the world. They are usually passive in nature, and the attorney can take steps to protect himself by following certain precautions contained later in this presentation.
A final danger, though, is that a state or nation could conceivably attempt to prohibit attorney web sites outright. If such a state can assert jurisdiction over an attorney on the web (see supra), then that attorney is subject to the sanctions imposed by that particular state or nation. Although it is unlikely that the United States Supreme Court would allow such a blanket prohibition in light of previous First Amendment rulings (see supra), it is less clear what foreign nations might do. Thus, an attorney must take these concerns into account when deciding whether to set up a web site for his practice or law firm, and expose himself to such remote, but foreseeable, risks.
Video/Animation = Television?
Of great concern is the use of video or animation on an attorney web site. Many states regulate attorney use of television more extensively than other advertising mediums (see supra). Therefore, if a state likens an animated web site or a web site with video clips to a television advertisement, the attorney utilizing such tools is opening himself up to broader liability for regulatory violations. Because of this danger, it is recommended that such an attorney investigate the television advertising regulations that apply to the jurisdiction(s) of his practice and ensure that his site complies with these requirements.
Of course, there is always the danger of foreign states asserting jurisdiction over an attorney's web site, even if the attorney does not practice in that jurisdiction (see supra). Thus, to be safer, the attorney can either avoid the use of any of video or animation in his site, or follow the television advertising regulations of the strictest state or nation. Another danger is that a state or nation may consider any web site analogous to a television advertisement, and thus extensively regulate it. These questions have yet to be answered by the legal system.
Home | Table of Contents | Search
NOTHING IN THIS PRESENTATION REPRESENTS LEGAL ADVICE, AND NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS IMPLIED BY ANYTHING ON THIS SITE.
This page developed by Robert F. Bodi
for a Cyberlaw class at The
University of Akron - School
of Law
This page hosted by CleveNet; Original
material copyright © 1998 by Robert F. Bodi. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly
those of the page author. Information in
this document is subject to change without notice, and no guarantee of accuracy is given
nor implied. Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders. Cases cited in this document are
public domain. Links to other web sites are unique works and not the property of
Robert F. Bodi, and he is not responsible for their content. None of the links are
used by permission. This page last updated on Friday, November 20, 1998
The material appearing in this Web site is for information purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The information provided in this Web site is provided only as general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. This Web site is not intended to be advertising and we do not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this Web site in a state where this Web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
