Can a Florida lawyer offer legal services to clients over the internet?

Plain-English summary

A member proposed offering limited online legal services to Florida residents on simple matters not requiring office visits or court appearances, such as simple wills, incorporation papers, real estate contracts, residential leases, and uncontested marital agreements, at fees below the customary in-office charge, with documents reviewed by a Florida-authorized attorney rather than a nonlawyer and payment by credit card on a secure server. The lawyer asked whether ethics rules limited such an internet practice.

The opinion concluded there was no express provision prohibiting the practice of law over the internet, and that the attorney would be held to all of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It identified specific obligations: a conflict-screening process to avoid conflicts under Rules 4-1.7 through 4-1.12, identification of the responsible attorney, and confidentiality under Rule 4-1.6. On email, the committee observed that, although it had not yet issued its own opinion, almost all jurisdictions that had considered the question concluded that unencrypted email did not violate confidentiality, while generally advising the lawyer to consult the client before transmitting highly sensitive information; it therefore treated sending unencrypted email as permissible under normal circumstances. The opinion required competent representation under Rule 4-1.1, so that if a client's situation was too complex to be handled easily over the internet, the attorney had to inform the client and, if the client was unwilling to meet in person, decline or withdraw. Nonlawyer work had to be supervised under Rule 4-5.3.

The opinion also concluded that, because the proposal involved the practice of law, the attorney could perform the services only through the attorney's law firm; Florida attorneys could not practice through a regular corporation, and doing so would implicate the unlicensed practice of law in violation of Rule 4-5.5(b) (citing Rule 4-8.6(a) and Florida Opinion 88-13). To avoid misleading appearances and unlicensed practice elsewhere, the attorney was advised to indicate that questions could be answered only as to Florida law and to check the rules of any other jurisdiction of admission. The attorney's website had to comply with Rule 4-7.6(b), and other advertising of the internet practice had to comply with subchapter 4-7. (A note records that Rule 4-1.2 was later amended to add subdivision (c) on limited-scope representation, and the original text flags that websites are now governed by Rule 4-7.11(a).)

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion allow a lawyer to practice law over the internet?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded there was no rule prohibiting internet practice and that the attorney would be held to all of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including competence, communication, conflicts, and confidentiality.

Q: Did the opinion require encrypted email with clients?

A: No. The opinion treated unencrypted email as permissible under normal circumstances, noting that almost all jurisdictions that had considered the issue agreed, but it pointed to guidance that a lawyer should consult the client before transmitting highly sensitive information.

Q: What did the opinion say to do if an online matter turned out to be too complex?

A: The opinion concluded the attorney had to inform the client, and if the client was then unwilling to meet in person, the attorney had to decline the representation or withdraw if it had already begun.

Q: Could the lawyer run the online service through an ordinary corporation?

A: No. The opinion concluded the services could be performed only through the attorney's law firm; practicing through a regular corporation would implicate the unlicensed practice of law and violate Rule 4-5.5(b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 4-1.1 (competence, Model Rule 1.1), Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality, Model Rule 1.6), Rules 4-1.7 through 4-1.12 (conflicts of interest), Rule 4-5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistants, Model Rule 5.3), Rule 4-5.5(b) (unlicensed practice, Model Rule 5.5), Rule 4-8.6(a) (authorized business entities), and the lawyer-advertising provisions of subchapter 4-7, all of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as they stood in 2000.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.1 / Fla. Rule 4-1.1 (competence)
• Model Rule 1.6 / Fla. Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality)
• Fla. Rules 4-1.7 through 4-1.12 (conflicts of interest)
• Model Rule 5.3 / Fla. Rule 4-5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistants)
• Model Rule 5.5 / Fla. Rule 4-5.5(b) (unlicensed practice of law)
• Fla. Rule 4-8.6(a) (authorized business entities); subchapter 4-7 and Rule 4-7.6(b) (advertising)

Cases:

• In re the Joint Petition of The Florida Bar and Raymond James and Associates, 215 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1968)
• The Florida Bar v. Consolidated Business and Legal Forms, 386 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1980)

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Op. 88-13; ABA Formal Op. 99-413; Alaska Op. 98-2; Illinois Op. 96-10; New York Op. 709; Ohio Ops. 99-2, 99-9; South Carolina Ops. 94-27, 97-08; Vermont Op. 97-5

See also

• Florida Bar Op. 12-3: Cloud Computing
• Florida Bar Op. 10-2: Confidentiality and Devices With Storage Media
• CA Ethics Op. 2012-184: Virtual Law Office and the Cloud

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-00-4/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-00-4-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 00-4
July 15, 2000
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may provide legal services over the Internet, through the attorney’s law firm,
on matters not requiring in-person consultation or court appearances. All rules of professional
conduct apply, including competence, communication, conflicts of interest, and confidentiality.
An attorney may communicate with the client using unencrypted e-mail under most
circumstances. If a matter cannot be handled over the Internet because of its complexity, the
matter must be declined.
Note: After this opinion was written, Rule 4-1.2 was amended to add subdivision (c)
addressing representations limited in scope which provides as follows: If not prohibited by
law or rule, a lawyer and client may agree to limit the objectives or scope of the
representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives
informed consent in writing. If the attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the
representation, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding applicability of the rule
prohibiting communication with a represented person.
RPC: 4-1.1, 4-1.6, 4-1.7 through 4-1.12, 4-5.3, 4-5.5(b), Subchapter 4-7, 4-7.6(b) [no
current rule equivalent], 4-8.6(a)
Opinions: 88-13; ABA Formal 99-413, Alaska 98-2, Illinois 96-10, New York 709, Ohio
99-2 and 99-9, South Carolina 94-27 and 97-08, Vermont 97-5
Cases: In re the Joint Petition of The Florida Bar and Raymond James and Associate,
215 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1968); The Florida Bar v. Consolidated Business and Legal
Forms, 386 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1980)
A member of The Florida Bar has requested an advisory ethics opinion. The inquiring
attorney would like to provide limited, on-line legal services to Florida residents on simple
matters not requiring office visits or court appearances. The inquiring attorney contemplates that
these services would include simple wills, incorporation papers, real estate contracts, residential
leases and uncontested marital agreements. Documents would be generated at the client’s option
and the attorney would charge a fee less than the customary in-office charges. The documents
would be reviewed by the inquiring attorney or another attorney authorized to provide legal
services in Florida rather than by a paralegal or other nonlawyer. Charges would be made via
credit card on a secure server. The inquiring attorney will not charge for simple forms
obtainable elsewhere without cost and anticipates providing links to other sites, including The
Florida Bar and the Florida Secretary of State, where those forms may be accessed directly. The
inquiring attorney asks if there are ethical limitations on offering such a legal service via the
Internet.
There is no express provision in the Rules of Professional Conduct that prohibit the
inquiring attorney from practicing law through the Internet. As noted by the New York State Bar
Association Committee on Professional Ethics in its Opinion 709, it is permissible to practice

Page 2

over the Internet as long as the attorney complies with the ethics rules. See also Ohio Ethics
Opinion 99-9 and South Carolina Ethics Opinion 94-27. In other words, the inquiring attorney
would be held to the requirements of all of the Rules of Professional Conduct. For instance, the
inquiring attorney must have a conflict screening process to avoid conflicts of interest under
Rules 4-1.7 through 4-1.12. The name of the responsible attorney must also be identified. The
inquiring attorney also must ensure client confidentiality under Rule 4-1.6. While the
Professional Ethics Committee has yet to issue an opinion on the confidentiality implications of
using e-mail to communicate with clients, almost all of the jurisdictions that have considered the
issue have decided that an attorney does not violate the duty of confidentiality by sending
unencrypted e-mail. However, these opinions also generally conclude that an attorney should
consult with the client and follow the client’s instructions before transmitting highly sensitive
information by e-mail. See, e.g., ABA Formal Opinion 99-413, Alaska Ethics Opinion 98-2,
Vermont Ethics Opinion 97-5, Illinois Ethics Opinion 96-10, South Carolina Ethics Opinion
97-08, and Ohio Ethics Opinion 99-2. Thus, sending the e-mail unencrypted would not be an
ethical violation under normal circumstances.
Of course, the inquiring attorney is obligated to provide competent representation to these
clients under Rule 4-1.1. Thus, if the client’s situation is too complex to be easily handled over
the Internet, the inquiring attorney must so inform the client. If the client is then unwilling to
meet in person with the inquiring attorney, the inquiring attorney must decline the representation
or, if representation has already begun, to withdraw.
Any work done by the inquiring attorney’s nonlawyer employees must be supervised by
the attorney as required by Rule 4-5.3 to ensure that the nonlawyer employee’s conduct is
compatible with the professional obligations of the inquiring attorney.
As the inquiring attorney’s proposal involves the practice of law, the inquiring attorney
can only perform the services through the attorney’s law firm. Florida attorneys are not
permitted to practice law through a corporate entity other than a professional service corporation,
professional association or a professional limited liability company. See, Rule 4-8.6(a) and
Florida Ethics Opinion 88-13. Practicing law through a regular corporation implicates the
unlicensed practice of law and would result in the inquiring attorney violating Rule 4-5.5(b). See
also, In re the Joint Petition of The Florida Bar and Raymond James and Associate, 215 So. 2d
613 (Fla. 1968) and The Florida Bar v. Consolidated Business and Legal Forms, 386 So. 2d 797
(Fla. 1980).
Regarding a related issue, the inquiring attorney, in order to avoid misleading
appearances and to avoid any unlicensed practice of law in other jurisdictions, should indicate
that the attorney can only answer questions limited to Florida law. If the inquiring attorney is
admitted to practice in any other jurisdictions, the attorney should contact those jurisdictions to
determine whether this proposal would meet the requirements of their rules.
Finally, the inquiring attorney’s website must comply with the provisions of Rule
4-7.6(b) [websites are now subject to the substantive lawyer advertising rules; See Rule 4-
7.11(a)]. Any other advertising of the inquiring attorney’s Internet practice must comply with the
advertising rules found in subchapter 4-7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Page 3

In conclusion, the inquiring attorney’s proposal is permissible as part of the attorney’s
law practice through the attorney’s law firm. As the proposal involves the practice of law, the
inquiring attorney owes Internet clients all the ethical duties contained in the Rules of
Professional Conduct.