TAG: Advertising: LegalEthics.com resources relating to advertising. Subscribe
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:53-07:00Feb 25th, 2015|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Blogs, California, Websites|
California's Interim Formal Opinion 12-0006 suggests that advertising ethics rules should apply to law firms and lawyers that publish blog posts as part of their website. See the interim [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:56-07:00Nov 6th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: ABA, Advertising, Conflicts, Disclaimers, Internet Use, Websites|
Lawyers may use deal-of-the-day or group-coupon marketing programs as a way to sell goods and services. However, lawyers hoping to market legal services using these programs must comply with various [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:58-07:00Jul 23rd, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Ohio, Solicitation|
Ohio lawyers can use text messages to solicit employment from prospective clients as long as the layer complies with advertising and solicitation rules and other potentially applicable statutes and regulations. [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:58-07:00May 15th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Arizona, Attorney-client relationship, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Fee sharing|
State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 13-01 addressed whether an Internet marketing voucher or coupon sold by a lawyer for legal representation is consistent with the Arizona Rules of Professional [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:59-07:00Apr 24th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Arizona, Domain Names, Internet Use|
For-profit Arizona law firms may use the .org domain name suffix as long as the website is otherwise not false or misleading. See Arizona Ethics Op. 11-04 (December 2011).
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:34:02-07:00Mar 1st, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Blogs, Virginia|
In Hunter v. VA Bar, No 121472 (February 28, 2013), the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond held that a lawyer's blog about a completed case was commercial speech and [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:34:03-07:00Feb 12th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Indiana|
Indiana lawyers should not use Groupon or similar coupon or daily deal sites to market legal services. See Indiana Ethics Op. 2012-1.
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:36:22-07:00Feb 12th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Maryland, Websites|
Maryland lawyers can use a third party company to offer discounted services to online customers as long as the lawyer takes steps to ameliorate potential ethical concerns that may be implicated by [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:36:23-07:00Feb 2nd, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Fee sharing, Nebraska, Websites|
Nebraska lawyers may advertise their services via Groupon and similar sites. Nebraska Ethics Opinion 12-03.
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:36:23-07:00Jan 15th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Alabama, Conflicts, Fee sharing|
Alabama lawyers may not use of websites like Groupon to sell their legal services because it violates the ethics rule against sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, as well as the [...]
