Ezel / Ethics Opinions / DCBAR
DCBAR November 2016

Do the D.C. ethics rules apply to a lawyer's social media accounts, including a personal page, and what must a lawyer watch for in posts, reviews, and endorsements?

Short answer: The opinion concludes that the D.C. Rules apply to a lawyer's use of social media for both business and personal reasons, and that any social media presence, even a personal page, may be considered advertising or marketing. Common activities (connecting with clients, writing about cases, responding to reviews, listing skills or 'specialties,' and endorsing other lawyers) are generally permitted but must not be false or misleading under Rule 7.1 and Rule 8.4(c). A lawyer must keep social media accurate and competent under Rule 1.1, and must monitor and correct content on pages the lawyer controls, since others cannot say what the lawyer could not.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2016. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2016
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Opinion 370 (published November 2016) is the first of a two-part treatment of lawyers and social media; it covers marketing and personal use, while Opinion 371 covers using social media in the substantive practice of law. The Committee defines social media broadly (any electronic platform for public, semi-private, or private interaction) and concludes the D.C. Rules apply to a lawyer's social media whether used for business or personal reasons, regardless of practice area or employer. It cautions that any social media presence, even a personal page, could be considered advertising or marketing, so the attorney-advertising rules may apply.

The opinion identifies common activities and concludes each is generally permissible but requires caution: connecting and communicating with clients, former clients, and other lawyers; writing about the lawyer's own cases on blogs or sites; commenting on or responding to online reviews; self-identifying "specialties," "skills," and "expertise"; reviewing third-party endorsements; and endorsing other lawyers. The unifying limit is Rule 7.1 and Rule 8.4(c): nothing the lawyer posts (or claims about skills or specialties) may be false or misleading, and an endorsement of another lawyer must rest on a genuine belief that the lawyer has the skills described. Writing about one's own cases also implicates the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6.

On content posted by others, the opinion draws a line based on control. Because Rule 8.4(a) bars violating the Rules through the acts of others, clients and colleagues cannot say things about the lawyer that the lawyer could not say, and the lawyer must monitor, review, and correct content on pages the lawyer controls. For sites the lawyer does not control, the opinion concludes there is no affirmative duty to monitor others' content, though the lawyer may ask the poster or the site to remove inaccurate content or post a curative response. The opinion also reminds D.C. lawyers that their social media may be subject to other jurisdictions' rules under choice-of-law principles and Rule 8.5.

In practice

Under the D.C. rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a lawyer using social media for business or personal purposes should treat the Rules as fully applicable, recognizing that even a personal page may be viewed as advertising. The opinion concludes that posting about cases, responding to reviews, listing skills or "specialties," and endorsing other lawyers are permitted only if accurate and not misleading under Rule 7.1 and Rule 8.4(c), and that posting about one's own cases must respect Rule 1.6 confidentiality.

The opinion concludes a lawyer must keep social media accurate and competent under Rule 1.1 and must monitor and correct content on pages the lawyer controls, since others cannot post what the lawyer could not say (Rule 8.4(a)); for sites the lawyer does not control, there is no duty to monitor, but the lawyer may request removal or post a correction. Because the opinion predates later rule developments, verify the current D.C. rules before relying on specific requirements.

Common questions

Q: Do the ethics rules apply to my personal social media, not just my law firm page?

A: The opinion concludes yes. The Rules apply to a lawyer's social media for business or personal reasons, and any presence, even a personal page, could be considered advertising or marketing.

Q: Can I list my "specialties" or "expertise" on LinkedIn or other sites?

A: The opinion concludes self-identifying skills, specialties, and expertise is generally permissible but must not be false or misleading under Rule 7.1 and Rule 8.4(c).

Q: Can I endorse another lawyer on social media?

A: The opinion concludes yes, provided the endorsement is not false or misleading and rests on a genuine belief that the lawyer actually possesses the skills or legal acumen described.

Q: Do I have to police what clients or others post about me?

A: The opinion concludes you must monitor and correct content on pages you control, because others cannot say what you could not say (Rule 8.4(a)); for sites you do not control there is no duty to monitor, though you may request removal or post a curative response.

Q: Could another state discipline me for my social media even though I practice in D.C.?

A: The opinion cautions yes; under choice-of-law principles and Rule 8.5, a D.C. lawyer's social media may be subject to other jurisdictions' rules, including neighboring Maryland and Virginia.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies D.C. Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; no false or misleading statements), Rule 8.4 (misconduct, including violations through the acts of others), Rule 1.1 (competence, including with relevant technology), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rules 1.7 and 1.18 (conflicts and prospective clients), and Rule 8.5 (disciplinary authority and choice of law). It is the companion to Opinion 371 (Social Media II).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • D.C. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
  • D.C. RPC 8.4(a), (c) / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct; acts through others; dishonesty)
  • D.C. RPC 1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence, including technology)
  • D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
  • D.C. RPC 8.5 / Model Rule 8.5 (disciplinary authority; choice of law)

Other opinions cited:

  • D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Op. 311: choice-of-law analysis in non-judicial proceedings
  • D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Op. 371: social media in providing legal services (companion)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2016 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.