Three short burst updates

In case you haven’t yet “checked out” for the week to have what I hope is a makeshift, stay-at-home Thanksgiving banquet to kick-off your holiday weekend, here are four very short but, mostly timely, updates on topics of prior posts.

First, the Tennessee Supreme Court has put the TBA advertising rule revisions proposal out for public comment. You can access the order here. The deadline for public comments is March 12, 2021, so you can anticipate that if these revisions are adopted, they likely will not be going into effect prior to May or, more likely, June 2021 at the earliest.

Second, despite the fact that most if not all of the “battleground” states have certified their results, the outgoing, impeached, one-term President’s lawyers do not seem to be relenting on their insistence on court filings and out-of-court false statements. The ongoing behavior has spurred quite a few prominent voices in legal ethics to speak out on the issues, but that there appear to be clear violations and also the reasons that there will quite likely never be any discipline imposed. You can read a couple of different articles surveying the landscape here, and here. Also, as a slightly more direct follow up to my post from late last week, you can read this article from Reuters that includes some interactions with yours truly.

Third, and technically not what would typically qualify as an “update,” nor possibly even a “short burst,” lawyers continue to have difficulty navigating protecting client confidences when seeking to withdraw from representations. I haven’t written about any instances of lawyers getting disciplined for such missteps in a long time, but there now is an extremely recent example of a lawyer being publicly censured for exactly that, and it arises from my home state. You can read the press release about the public censure here.

The press release, unsurprisingly, does not contain much in the way of details beyond indicating that the problematic conduct was “negligently disclosing confidential client information in an affidavit filed with [a] Motion to Withdraw from representation.” In fact, it would be horrible if too many details were included in such a press release when the underlying problem was the lawyer disclosing too much information in connection with seeking withdrawal.

What is a little surprising is that this discipline came about only have a full trial before a hearing panel. If you’d really like to know more of the full story, you can read the Hearing Panel judgment after the trial at the link below. (Bad link replaced with PDF download.)

For those readers who may be thinking to themselves, sure but I would never make that kind of error, the lawyer in question has been licensed in Tennessee for nearly 50 years. So maybe you shouldn’t be so confident?

But, for the benefit of those same readers, the lawyer in question also made clear in his efforts to defend himself in the proceedings (a fact that likely explains the need for the trial) that he did not comprehend (even after 50 years of practice) that the ethics rules impose an obligation of confidentiality that is much broader than the attorney-client privilege.

So, maybe you can be confident?

Increasing access to information about legal services – TN Edition

This will be a mostly short entry for this week because the most important item to put into your reading pile is what I’m writing about rather than the post itself. (Admittedly, I’m certain many of you are thinking … “well, that’s kind of always true Einstein.”)

I have written over the years here about a number of cutting-edge undertakings occurring in various states to try to address re-regulating the practice of law. I will not repeat that content here, but I will confess that I’ve fallen behind as there are some that have happened that have avoided my attention.

Many of those endeavors involve changes to the rules on legal advertising as a secondary-level improvement to other, bolder regulatory reforms. Here in Tennessee I don’t think we are very close to launching any sort of task force aimed at re-regulating the practice of law in the immediate future, but I am pleased to report that the wheels are beginning to turn on the topic of seeking reform of the rules on lawyer advertising.

Earlier this week, the Tennessee Bar Association filed a petition with the Tennessee Supreme Court asking it to adopt proposed revisions to the current ethics rules in Tennessee located at RPCs 7.1 through 7.6.

As the petition indicates, the rules revision proposal involves a blend of what APRL proposed back in 2015 and 2016 and what the ABA ultimately adopted as revisions to the Model Rules in 2018 regarding advertising matters. Like those reforms, the TBA petition would delete three rule provisions (RPC 7.2, 7.4., and 7.5) and move remaining comment guidance from those rules into the Comment to RPC 7.1. Tennessee would retain an RPC 7.3 addressing solicitation and some other issues.

The TBA also retains some existing Tennessee-specific approaches to issues, but, on the whole, the revisions would be significant progress toward two goals as explained in the petition itself:

(1) winnowing down restrictions imposed on lawyer advertising to the core requirement that lawyers not make false or misleading statements about themselves or their services, and (2) removing restrictions on communications by lawyers where the types of communications now barred are not likely to cause consumer harm.

As the petition was only filed this week, the Court has not taken any action on it such as putting it out for public comment.

Because I know a guy, if you’d like to read the petition and review its proposed changes, you can download those documents at the links below.

Three developments presented in decreasing order of importance.

Last week, the Utah Supreme Court officially approved the most “radical” change in any state’s ethics rules since DC adopted a limited approval for law firms to have partners who are not lawyers several decades ago.

The Utah Supreme Court announced its adoption of a package of reforms aimed at improving the access to justice gap in Utah as well as improving the availability of access to legal information generally. I’ve written about the Utah proposal in the past, but you can read the press release regarding approval of the reforms issued by the Utah Supreme Court here.

In addition to reforms to the advertising rules, the re-regulation effort revises Utah’s version of RPC 5.4 and 7.2 to allow people who are not lawyers to have ownership interests in law firms, allow lawyers and people who are not lawyers to work together in entities that will provide legal services and allow lawyers to compensate people who are not lawyers for bringing them work. As part and parcel of these efforts, Utah has formed a regulatory “sandbox” where entities can apply to take advantage of these provisions and deliver legal services and through which data can be gathered about the effectiveness of the revisions. The sandbox program will operate initially as a two-year program. You can read more takes online about this development here, here, and here.

Also, just shy of a month ago now, the Chicago Bar Association became the first voluntary bar association to have a task force report that also proposes altering aspects of the legal landscape to address these issues. You can read the full task force report from the Chicago Bar Association here if you’d like. What the Chicago Bar proposes does not go nearly as far as what Utah is undertaking – specifically the Chicago Bar was not willing to take on ownership restrictions — but it does propose significant reforms, including:

  • Removing restrictions on the ability of lawyers to work with intermediaries to deliver legal services
  • Creating a new category of licensed paralegal that could deliver certain limited legal services to consumers
  • Streamlining the Illinois ethics rules related to advertising

Finally (for today), the least important development of the three, but one I shamelessly will still write about… I am honored to report that on Friday of last week I was elected as President-Elect of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. As a result, I will serve in that capacity from August 2020 to August 2021 and will then become President of APRL for a one-year term commencing in August 2021. I am very much looking forward to being able to serve APRL as the 32nd President in its history as an organization.

Rule revision roundup.

That title is probably a thing somewhere else on the interwebs already, but I’m just lazy enough to not look it up at the moment.

So, it’s been a minute since I have written anything about the progress (or lack thereof) of jurisdictions adopting ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) and since I have written anything (other than indirectly) about whether any progress has been made on adopting the revised, modernized approach to lawyer advertising rules seen in the APRL-inspired, ABA Model Rules revision from last year.

In overlooking those stories in favor of writing about more radical proposed changes to the ethics landscape (some of which have thrown modernized advertising proposals into the stew), I’ve been highlighting a lot of activity in the western United States. But spending a bit of time on these other two topics, gives me a chance to write about happenings in the New England region of the United States.

Specifically, earlier this year (more than five months ago in fact), Maine became the second U.S. jurisdiction to adopt a version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) to seek to address harassment and discrimination related to the practice of law. A neighboring state, Vermont, is the only other state to have done so. Unlike Vermont, however, Maine did not adopt an exact version of the ABA Model Rule. Instead, Maine tweaked it in a few significant ways: (1) the Maine version does not include “marital” or “socioeconomic” status among the grounds for which discrimination is off-limits; (2) the Maine version does not include bar activities or professional social functions within what counts as “related to the practice of law,” and (3) it provides more detailed examples of what amounts to “harassment” and what amounts to “discrimination” under the rule. You may recall that an effort to adopt a modified version of Rule 8.4(g) here in my state of Tennessee failed miserably in 2018.

A bit more recently (only just three months ago), Connecticut became the first state to adopt the ABA revisions to the Model Rules related to lawyer advertising. You may recall that Virginia actually overhauled its rules even before the ABA took action by adopting the original APRL proposal back in 2017. In so doing, Connecticut (for the most part) has stripped its advertising regulations down to just three rules — patterned on ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. Connecticut does still keep a couple of its additional bells and whistles (though it can be hard at first blush to know for certain because they used [brackets] to indicate deletions rather than strike-through text). One deviation that it kept was its 40-day off limits provision for people involved in accidents. Another deviation is that they have a three-year record retention requirement in their version of these rules. A few other deviations made it through as well.

If I could take issue with one choice Connecticut has made (well, technically two — seriously, don’t do the brackets thing ever again), it would be the level of unnecessary detail in the following provision about record retention:

An electronic communication regarding the lawyer’s services shall be copied once every three months on a compact disc or similar technology and kept for three years after its last dissemination.

The problem with this is … well there are several. In 2019, a whole lot of computers don’t even have CD-ROM drives any longer, but also the level of specificity and detail is both micromanagement of an unneeded degree and entirely unlikely to actually accomplish anything. As to micromanagement, just require that an electronic record be retained for the three year period – if they want to store it in a server or in the cloud or wherever, it won’t matter as long as they retain it so that if you ever need to examine it you get it from them.

And also, every three months? Both micromanagement and ineffectual, a lawyer who wants to game that system just changes an electronic communication to be shady in the middle of the three month window and changes it back in time to make the every three-month copy.

Except, of course not really, because the stories about Connecticut’s adoption of the ABA Model Rules on advertising, including this story, all buried the lede — Connecticut still requires lawyers who advertise in public media to file a copy of the advertisement in the form it is distributed with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Sigh. While this is not a “prior restraint,” it is a “prior pain-in-the-ass” (TM, TM, TM, TM) that serves little to no purpose other than imposing additional expenses and red tape on lawyer advertising.

To have both such a filing requirement and a three-year record retention requirement is among the worst sort of “belt and suspenders” arrangements.

In the end, I guess that’s part of why it took so long to actually write this post. Between reading the headlines and being a bit excited and actually studying what Connecticut did, I ended up feeling like I just got nutmegged.

I always knew I’d be headlining music festivals one day.

That’s not true at all. I never even imagined I’d be the headliner at a music festival.

After this year’s AmericanaFest in Nashville though, everything has changed.

Well, that’s actually still pretty misleading as I was not the headliner at AmericanaFest.

I did, however, get to be a speaker during AmericanaFest, as part of a panel along with Professor Tim Chinaris. Ours was neither the most high-profile and well-attended session of the conference, but we did talk for 90 minutes about a timely topic in the world of legal ethics.

Unlike loads of other parts of this post, the two-immediately preceding sentences are neither false nor misleading.

Other programming events at the CLE conference portion of AmericanaFest included a session (featuring the daughter of June Carter Cash as a panelist) focused on the upcoming PBS series from Ken Burns about the history of country music, a lunch session involving a conversation with Grammy award winner Brandi Carlile, and a session focused on combating internet monopolies featuring another Grammy award winner, T-Bone Burnett.

Professor Chinaris and I spoke about the new ABA Model Rules revisions addressing lawyer advertising and the current trend toward modernization of such rules across the country. Ours was definitely the best presentation during AmericanaFest on that subject.

Of course, to make that last sentence entirely truthful and not the least bit misleading, I should add that ours was the only presentation during AmericanaFest on that subject.

This post has been much more amusing for me to write than it probably has been for you to read. But, to the extent it can end up being a constructive effort at making any coherent point relevant to legal ethics, that point would be this: if a lawyer were seriously (rather than in jest) making any of the various kinds of false or misleading statements written above in order to advertise their services, the only ethics rule that would be necessary to have a way of imposing discipline for such conduct would be a rule such as ABA Model Rule 7.1.

Model Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning A Lawyer’s Services.

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.

If this post can be allowed to make one other coherent point relevant to legal ethics, it would do so by quoting a piece of the report and recommendations from the Utah Work Group on Regulatory Reform that (as mentioned in this earlier post) the Utah Supreme Court approved explaining the need to rework Utah’s ethics rules related to lawyer advertising:

The main concern should be the protection of the public from false, misleading, or overreaching solicitations and advertising. Any other regulation of lawyer advertising seems to serve no legitimate purposes; indeed, it is blunt, ex ante, and — like so many current regulations — neither outcomes-based nor risk-appropriate.

Really big goings on in California.

And, no, in the title I’m not referring to the leak of information about the California Bar essay topics before the bar exam. Although that story is certainly bananas.

You’ve likely by now read at least something somewhere online about the most recent product coming out of the California State Bar Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services, consisting of tentative recommendations that has been formally put out for public comment. Most of the usual places where you can readily get good news about issues relevant to (or related to) the practice of law have done a piece of some sort about it.

It really is a significant step in the national discussion about what the regulation of the practice of law ought to look like moving forward and, if you have the time, the full 250-or-so-pages of report and related attachments is worth a read and available at this link. (To be clear, if you only have time to read one report spanning hundreds of pages, it should be The Mueller Report. The future of legal ethics in this country isn’t going to be of much importance if we can’t get a handle on just how badly the rule of law is currently being threatened by our institutions (Part 2) and just how little faith and confidence we can have in the integrity of our elections process (Part 1). So, if you are a lawyer and still have not read that report yet, then you need to do so.)

(If you have time to read two massively long reports, then the ATILS report should be the other one.)

There is so much about the ATILS proposal, and its variants, that is worth writing about that I’m pretty certain I’m going to end up dedicating a few posts to the subject matter – though spread out a bit so as not to only write about it and nothing else for too long a time period. Aspects of what is being discussed are really substantial changes to the way things work now and will most certainly be scrutinized and subjected to significant debate.

To start off though, I want to just talk about two aspects of the report that ought to be much less controversial both because it is an easy jumping off point and because, on their own, they give a glimpse into how fast things are moving these days.

Now you may recall that California only very recently (effective November 1, 2018 as a matter of fact) revised their ethics rules in an overhaul that more closely resembles aspects of the ABA Model Rules. In so doing, California became the very last U.S. state to do so. But getting there took more than 17 years. With those revisions, California adopted a version of ABA Model Rule 1.1 on competence and adopted ethics rules related to legal advertising that at least followed the numbering and overall framework – with some deviations – of ABA Model Rules 7.1 through 7.5.

Despite the fact that California’s versions of those rules still essentially have a “wet paint” sign on them, the task force report is proposing a revision to California’s RPC 1.1 and is proposing that another pass be taken at California RPCs 7.1 through 7.5 to either put them more in line with the most recent revisions to the ABA Model Rules or possibly more in line with the less modest proposal that the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers made that (as written about here a time or two) started the process moving that led to the ABA revisions.

Being willing to consider such things less than a year since adopting new rules is a bit unusual on its own, but when it comes to RPC 1.1, the task force is going a bit further and proposing that California revise the language a bit even from what the ABA Model Rule says. To a large degree the proposed deviation is a bit wonky because, at heart, it stems from the age-old debate about where exactly the right lines are in terms of what Comments can be used for and what they can do when compared to the text of the rule itself. (The discussion of the motivation and issue is found at p. 18-19 of the task force report documents.)

The ABA Model Rule comment language reads:

To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and in practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology….

The California proposal would instead be:

The duties set forth in this rule include the duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.

For what it is worth, I can manage to both think that the ABA Model Rule approach does not run afoul of the balance between comment and rule but also agree with the task force proposal that if California adopted the proposed variation, it would likely be a better approach.

Now the cynical amongst us may say that these topics wouldn’t be being addressed if there wasn’t a much larger set of reforms being put on the table. And those folks are probably right … about which more later.

Asking in South Carolina and definitely not receiving.

This development in South Carolina happened last month and I saw some folks getting a little worked up about it but am only getting around to writing a little about it now. (In fairness, last month only became last month around 80 hours or so ago.) But for some people getting worked up about it, it wouldn’t actually be all that noteworthy given that all South Carolina did was adopt a comment that made plain what the rule already truly required.

Nevertheless, it makes for an interesting subject not only because of the reaction it garnered but how it came about… in response to a petition seeking to change South Carolina’s Rule 1.6 in an entirely different direction.

But, I’ve managed to get way ahead of myself with the textual throat-clearing and have started in on all of this like you know what I am talking about.

In June 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court entered an order that rejected an attempt by the South Carolina Bar to seek to have RPC 1.6 revised to permit lawyers to make reference to published court decisions in their advertising without having to get their client’s informed consent. And, to be clear, what the bar was asking for was a very incremental level of permission. They were seeking to have the rule allow a lawyer to make reference to the citation of a published case, not the details of it, just the citation.

Now I suspect many lawyers would assume that no such revision was even necessary on the basis that they simply think that public information is public information and can be used in whatever fashion is desired. In fact, this Bloomberg article quotes someone from a law firm I used to work for saying something along those lines. That might well be a common sense approach but it is simply an entirely incorrect statement when it comes to how the ethics rule on confidentiality works.

As I’ve written about in the past (probably more times than you care to remember but most recently in August 2018), RPC 1.6 continues to impose confidentiality obligations on lawyers as to information related to representation of a client even as to the most public of events. And, what that means is, when you work through the rule and its various provisions authorizing disclosure of such information . . . there simply isn’t a provision that justifies use of the information in commercial advertising endeavors without the consent of the client.

The South Carolina Supreme Court was not interested in what the Bar was seeking. Instead, it opted to adopt a new comment to RPC 1.6 to drive the point home about what the text of RPC 1.6 already requires.

Specifically, the Court added the following new Comment [7] to its RPC 1.6:

[7] Disclosure of information related to the representation of a client for the purpose of marketing or advertising the lawyer’s services is not impliedly authorized because the disclosure is being made to promote the lawyer or law firm rather than to carry out the representation of a client. Although other Rules govern whether and how lawyers may communicate the availability of their services, paragraph (a) requires that a lawyer obtain informed consent from a current or former client if an advertisement reveals information relating to the representation. This restriction applies regardless of whether the information is contained in court filings or has become generally known. See Comment [3]. It is important the client understand any material risks related to the lawyer revealing information when the lawyer seeks informed consent in accordance with Rule 1.0(g). A number of factors may affect a client’s decision to provide informed consent, including the client’s level of sophistication, the content of any lawyer advertisement and the timing of the request. General, open-ended consent is not sufficient.

Of course, the South Carolina Supreme Court is not wrong about this. And, at a practical level, requiring client consent is not truly that onerous.

However, given the connection to lawyer advertising generally that this development has, it is worth pointing out that South Carolina is still a generally bad jurisdiction when it comes to that topic. Partly, this is because it still refuses to recognize at a fundamental level what the purpose of advertising actually is by having this kind of requirement in its RPC 7.2(a):

All advertisements shall be predominately informational such that, in both quantity and quality, the communication of factual information rationally related to the need for and selection of a lawyer predominates and the communication includes only a minimal amount of content designed to attract attention to and create interest in the communication.

New Lunar Year, New Lunar Rule?

Okay, the title is something of a stretch to acknowledge that today marks the beginning of a new lunar year, the Year of the Pig. Nothing about what I have to say relates to the moon or anything Lunar.

But I did want to continue one part of the discussion begun in Las Vegas last month, and truly follow through on my insistence about how what happens in Vegas shouldn’t just stay in Vegas this time, by sharing the text of a proposed new Model Rule that I drafted and that we kicked around during a panel discussion at the APRL Mid-Year Meeting.

The general topic is what to do with the rules, if anything, to address the reality of online lawyer matching services and other similar platforms that are benefiting consumers by helping connect consumers who are willing to pay a certain price point for legal services and lawyers who are willing and able to deliver those services at that price point but that are always in tension with the current ethics rules because of restrictions on lawyers providing compensation for referrals or recommendations and related restrictions on fee sharing.

We have a rule here in Tennessee which I believe to be substantively bad, but the architecture of the rule is pretty good if you change its goals. Sort of like an old house with really good bones but simply god-awful interior decorations. That rule is RPC 7.6 and imposes certain registration requirements and limitations on things denominated as “intermediary organizations.” Long time readers of this blog, might remember this post about how I believed RPC 7.6 applied to Avvo Legal Services back when that was still in operation.

The rule I have drafted as a conversation starter uses the architecture of the Tennessee rule but is designed to provide a more permissive and more flexible approach to the topic.

Implementation of such a rule would likely also require changes to Model Rules 5.4 and 7.2 to make clear that payments to intermediary organizations are not prohibited as fee sharing or prohibited by the restrictions on payment for referrals, and the accompanying Comment would likely need a paragraph to make clear certain things that are not intended to be swept up as an intermediary organization, but carts and horses and all of that.

The draft is posted below, all feedback is most welcome.


Proposed Model Rule 7.7:  Intermediary Organizations
(a)  An intermediary organization is a lawyer referral service, lawyer matching service, or other similar organization which engages in referring consumers of legal services to lawyers or facilitating the creation of attorney-client relationships between consumers of legal services and lawyers willing to provide assistance.


(b)  A lawyer may make a payment to an intermediary organization, including a payment that would be considered sharing of an attorney fee with an intermediary organization, in connection with any referral or facilitation of a relationship with a client as long as:


                (1)  The relationship between the lawyer and intermediary organization is fully disclosed to the client including, if requested by the client, the amount of any payment made by lawyer to the intermediary organization;
                (2)  The cost to the lawyer of any payment to the intermediary organization is not passed on to the client; and
                (3)  The lawyer does not permit the intermediary organization to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering legal services to the client.

Texas Two Steps Forward…One BIG Step Back

I have written in the past about the fact that I am fortunate to be the Chair of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Because our committee is currently beginning a process of chewing over whether to try to recommend changes to the advertising rules in Tennessee, I’ve been trying to pay closer attention to developments in other states. Specifically, trying to pay closer attention to whether the revisions to the ABA Model Rules inspired by the work of APRL are moving the needle in the correct direction.

Long time readers of this space will know that my long-espoused view is that the only real rule needed in terms of lawyer advertising is a prohibition on false or misleading communication. The ABA Model Rules have moved closer – but not all the way of course — to that kind of approach.

Today’s post is about the fact that the Texas Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda has proposed revisions to Texas’s ethics rules on advertising that are open for public comment until March 1, 2019.

You can read the proposed revisions here.

The short version is that these proposed revisions seem like a very positive development in a few respects as to regulation on lawyer advertising. The biggest positive is that these changes would replace wholesale the kind of improper categorization of certain statements that can be made truthfully (like comparison of one lawyer’s services to another or discusses past results obtained for clients) currently housed in Texas’s Rule 7.02(a) with a revised Rule 7.01 that isn’t perfect in terms of just prohibiting actually false or misleading communications but is better.

Unfortunately, the other piece of the short version is that the Texas revisions would still perpetuate a very pernicious and unnecessary barrier to speech in the form of filing requirements and payments in the form of filing fees for any advertisements that are not limited to certain types of “pre-approved” information.

The Texas proposed revisions would do this by continuing to carry forward in a revised Rule 7.04 the following requirement:

A lawyer shall file with the staff of the Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar of Texas, no later than the date of dissemination of an advertisement of legal services via public media, or the date of a solicitation communication sent by any means, including social media, for the purpose of obtaining professional employment:

(1) a copy of the advertisement or solicitation (including packaging if applicable) in the form in which it appeared or will appear upon dissemination;

(2) a completed lawyer application advertising and solicitation communication application; and

(3) payment to the State Bar of Texas of a fee set by the Board of Directors.

For context, currently the fee is set at $100. You can review the relatively invasive application form that is required and all of its bells and whistles here. In reading it you will also learn the cute part where if more than one lawyer in separate firms is involved in the same advertisement they are still each required to separately submit applications and pay multiple $100 fees.

The proposed revision would also exempt certain limited types of communications from these requirements as long as they only contain the “vanilla” categories of information pre-approved by the regulators.

Such a regulatory regime does not exist for any reason other than to fundamentally discourage advertising., should not be tolerated, and pointlessly mars any progress the Texas proposal otherwise offers.

Nevada provides lawyers yet another reason not to blow their own horn online.

I have beaten the drum for many, many years now about lawyers not understanding the true scope of their obligation of confidentiality under rules patterned after ABA Model Rule 1.6.  The ability to quickly share information far and wide online has not been helpful to lawyers who lack that understanding.  I remain astounded at how lawyers do not seem to recognize the unnecessary risk they are taking on by touting achievements in particular cases online.

Now, of course, I’m not privy to discussions between those attorneys and their clients in advance of such efforts so, perhaps, everything I see is kosher because every time I see a lawyer engage in such conduct they have gotten their client’s consent to do so in advance.

Based on my experience over the past 20 years though, I’m highly skeptical of that.  What I think is much more likely is that because these sorts of things usually never amount to any disciplinary proceedings much less instances of public discipline, this just continues to be something that many lawyers do either on the basis that the risk is minimal compared to the perceived reward or on the basis that they don’t see any risk at all.

For some lawyers, it is the misunderstanding about how confidentiality functions that can be the problem as they either aren’t aware (or simply don’t care) about the counter-intuitive fact that a public jury verdict is still RPC 1.6 confidential information as far as the lawyer is concerned.  Those transgressions can likely be forgiven by most, if not all, involved.  But, particularly when the self-congratulatory efforts in question go beyond just providing information about a jury verdict and also opt to reveal information about pre-trial settlement negotiations, the egregious nature of the breach of confidentiality is nearly impossible to forgive.  And, thanks to the way the Internet works, it is certainly impossible to forget.

Just this week, I saw one of these posts from lawyers with whom I use to practice law blowing their own horn about a very large jury verdict and revealing what the settlement offer from the defense was before trial.  I hope that they were operating with the consent of their clients or, if they happen to be reading this, that they go and at least get retroactive consent from the client involved which is better than having never gotten consent at all.

As if the risk of discipline (even if perceived to be a small risk) wasn’t enough to discourage lawyers from self-congratulatory social media postings (and if you spend any time on social media you know that it isn’t enough to discourage most), the Nevada Supreme Court provides a new opinion in a piece of defamation litigation that ought to give lawyers another reason to think very, very carefully about blowing their own horn online.

In Patin v. Lee, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the effort of a lawyer and a law firm to stop a defamation case brought against them by a dentist.  The dentist had been one of the opposing parties of the firm’s client in a dental malpractice case.  The lawyer and law firm tried through exercise of an anti-SLAPP motion to bring the defamation case to a quick end.  They were unsuccessful though as Nevada adopted California’s approach to determining whether something written online can be considered “in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body.”  If you aren’t familiar with the general concept of anti-SLAPP statutes, then such language is likely meaningless to you.  But, if you read the opinion it will give you a pretty efficient primer on the concept of anti-SLAPP statutes (SLAPP being an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). You can read that opinion right here

From a loss prevention standpoint, let me drill down on what is readily understandable in terms of the problematic conduct by the lawyer and law firm.  The lawyer represented a plaintiff in a dental malpractice lawsuit against three defendants – a dental group and two individual dentists.  The lawyer obtained a $3.4 million verdict in favor of the client against the dental group and one of the two individual dentists.  The jury verdict against the other dentist was one finding no liability.

There was some appellate wrangling in the malpractice case after the jury verdict but because the ultimate outcome on appeal did not change, that wrangling matters much less than what the lawyer and law firm decided to post on their website to tout their success in the case:

DENTAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH – PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT $3.4M, 2014 Description; Singletary v. Ton Vinh Lee, DDS et al.

A dental malpractice-based wrongful death action that arose out of the death of Decedent Reginald Singletary following the extraction of the No. 32 wisdom tooth by Defendants on or about April 16, 2011.  Plaintiff sued the dental office, Summerlin Smiles, the owner, Ton Vinh Lee, DDS, and the treating dentists, Florida Traivai, DMD and Jai Park, DDS, on behalf of the Estate, herself and minor son.

The problem with this self-congratulatory post on the firm’s website — separate and apart from the normal questions that might be asked about whether the clients were consulted and consented before the post was made — is that it doesn’t mention that Dr. Lee — the person named in the caption headline and in the body of the update — was the individual dentist found by the jury to have no liability.  That dentist, in turn, is who sued the lawyer and law firm for defamation because a reader of the post in question would reasonably think that Dr. Lee had been on the wrong end of a $3.4 million jury verdict.

Those that know me know that I am not much for dropping Bible quotes but, even I have to say that this would be a pretty good place to drop Proverbs 27:2 – “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth….”