Can a Florida lawyer respond to a former client's negative online review?
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 20-1: Responding to Negative Online Reviews
Short answer: A Florida lawyer may not disclose information relating to a client's representation to answer a negative online review, but may respond generally that the lawyer is constrained from replying as the lawyer would wish and that the review is neither fair nor accurate.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret The Florida Bar's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
The opinion answers an inquiry from a lawyer who wanted to reply to a former client's review accusing the lawyer of taking her money and running, by adding the verifiable fact that the court had authorized the lawyer's withdrawal. The committee applies Rule 4-1.6 and its comment, under which all information relating to the representation is confidential whatever its source, and the duty continues after the representation ends.
The opinion works through the Rule 4-1.6(c) exceptions and concludes none applies to an informal online review. Surveying opinions from Los Angeles County, Nassau County, New York State, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and disciplinary decisions from Colorado and Georgia, the committee adopts the majority view that the self-defense exception is not triggered by online criticism and that a lawyer may not reveal confidential information in response.
Applying that framework, the opinion concludes the inquiring lawyer may not state that the court entered a withdrawal order, because that is information relating to the representation and the client did not consent to its disclosure. The opinion endorses the restrained response modeled on Texas Opinion 622: the lawyer may say that ethical rules constrain a detailed reply and that the lawyer believes the post is neither a fair nor accurate picture of what occurred.
In practice
Under the Florida rule as it stood at the time of this 2020 opinion, a lawyer responding to a former client's negative review is limited to a general statement that does not reveal information relating to the representation. The opinion makes the controlling factor whether the proposed response would disclose representation-related information, including facts as seemingly neutral as the existence of a withdrawal order. The opinion identifies the absence of any applicable Rule 4-1.6(c) exception as the reason the lawyer may not say more.
Common questions
Q: Can a Florida lawyer post the facts to correct a false online review?
A: No, not if the facts relate to the representation. The opinion concludes that confidentiality covers all information about the representation whatever its source, that the duty continues for former clients, and that no Rule 4-1.6(c) exception is triggered by an informal review.
Q: What can the lawyer actually say in response?
A: The opinion endorses a restrained reply that reveals nothing confidential, for example that the lawyer is constrained by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar from responding in detail but believes the post is neither a fair nor accurate picture of what occurred.
Q: Does the "self-defense" exception let a lawyer answer an online review?
A: No. The opinion adopts the majority view from other jurisdictions that the self-defense exception applies to actual or threatened proceedings, not to informal online criticism, and cites Colorado disciplinary cases suspending lawyers who disclosed client information in review responses.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (confidentiality of information), the Florida analog of Model Rule 1.6, including its subdivision (c) list of when a lawyer may reveal information and its comment extending the duty to former clients. The Chapter 4 preamble's definition of informed consent frames what would be required to disclose.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 1.6 / Fla. Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality), subdivision 4-1.6(c) (when a lawyer may reveal information)
- Chapter 4 Preamble (definition of informed consent)
Cases:
- People v. Isaac, 470 P.3d 837 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2016), suspension for disclosing client information in review responses
- People v. Underhill, 2015 WL 4944102 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Aug. 12, 2015), suspension for posting confidential client information
- In re Skinner, 740 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. 2013), confidentiality violation by online disclosure
Other opinions cited:
- Los Angeles County Op. 525; Nassau County Op. 2016-01; New York State Op. 1032; Pennsylvania Op. 2014-200; Texas Op. 622; West Virginia Op. 2015-02
See also
- Florida Bar Op. 21-1: Responding to Reviews From Non-Clients
- Florida Bar Op. 25-1: Listservs and Client Confidentiality
- LACBA Formal Op. 525: Responding to Online Client Criticism
- Ohio BPC Op. 2016-008: Client Testimonials and Online Reviews
Source
- Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-20-1/
- Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2020/11/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-20-1.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 20-01
October 9, 2020
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may not disclose information relating to a client’s representation in response to
a negative online review, but may respond with a general statement that the lawyer is not
permitted to respond as the lawyer would wish, but that the online review is neither fair nor
accurate.
RPC: Preamble, 4-1.6(c)
Opinions: Los Angeles County 525; Nassau County 2016-01; New York State 1032;
Pennsylvania 2014-200; Texas 622; West Virginia 2015-02
Cases: People v. Isaac, 470 P.3d 837 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2016); People v. Underhill, 2015
WL 4944102 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Aug. 12, 2015); In re Skinner, 740 S.E.2d 171 (Ga.
2013)
A member of The Florida Bar has requested an advisory ethics opinion. The operative
facts as presented in the inquiring attorney’s letter are as follows:
The inquirer received a negative online review and would like to respond to the former
client’s negative review that the inquirer “took her money and ran” by using the language
suggested in Texas Ethics Opinion 662 and adding an objectively verifiable truthful statement
that the Court entered an order authorizing the inquirer to withdraw as counsel for the former
client. The inquirer believes this added language is proportional and restrained, consistent with
the Texas Ethics Opinion, directly addressed the allegations of the former client, and should be
permissible under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the First Amendment.
Rule 4-1.6(c) explains when a lawyer may reveal confidential information and states:
(c) When Lawyer May Reveal Information. A lawyer may reveal
confidential information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to serve the client’s interest unless it is information the client specifically
requires not to be disclosed;
(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy
between the lawyer and client;
(3) to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the
lawyer based on conduct in which the client was involved;
(4) to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s
representation of the client;
(5) to comply with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; or
(6) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest between lawyers in different
firms arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the
composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would
not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.
The comment to the rule explains:
A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the
absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information
relating to the representation…The confidentiality rule applies not merely to
matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information
relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose
confidential information except as authorized or required by the Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar or by law.
In addition, the last paragraph of the comment specifically addresses the lawyer’s duty of
confidentiality to former clients and explains that the duty of confidentiality continues after the
client-lawyer relationship has terminated.
A number of jurisdictions have looked at the issue of responding to negative online
reviews. A majority conclude that a lawyer may not disclose confidential information in
responding to online reviews. See Los Angeles County Ethics Opinion 525 (an attorney can
publicly respond to a former client’s disparaging comments only if the attorney’s response does
not disclose confidential information, the attorney does not respond in a manner that will injure
the former client in a matter involving the former representation, and the attorney’s response is
proportionate and restrained); Nassau County Ethics Opinion 2016-01 (a lawyer may not
disclose a former client’s confidential information solely to respond to criticism of the lawyer
posted on the Internet or a website by a relative of the former client or by the former client
himself); New York State Ethics Opinion 1032 (a lawyer may not disclose confidential
information just to respond to online criticism by the client on a rating site; the “self-defense”
exception to confidentiality does not apply to informal criticism where there is no actual or
threatened proceeding against the lawyer); Pennsylvania Ethics Opinion 2014-200 (a lawyer may
not give detailed response to online criticism of the lawyer by a client, may just ignore the online
criticism; the self-defense exception is not triggered by a negative online review); West Virginia
Legal Ethics Opinion 2015-02 (a lawyer may respond to positive or negative online reviews, but
may not disclose confidential client information while doing so); People v. Underhill, 2015 WL
4944102 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Aug. 12, 2015) (a lawyer was suspended 18 months for responding to
clients’ online criticism by posting confidential and sensitive information about the clients);
People v. Isaac, 470 P.3d 837 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2016)( a lawyer was given a six-month suspension
with requirement to apply for reinstatement for responding to online reviews of former clients
when the lawyer had revealed confidential information including the criminal charges made
against clients, that client wrote a check that had bounced, and that client committed other
unrelated felonies); In re Skinner, 740 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. 2013)(the Supreme Court of Georgia
rejected a petition for voluntary discipline seeking a public reprimand for lawyer’s violation of
the confidentiality rule by disclosing confidential client information on the Internet in response
to client’s negative reviews of lawyer, citing lack of information about the violation in the
record).
In the instant inquiry, the inquirer does not meet an exception to confidentiality under 4-
1.6(c). Because confidentiality covers all information regarding the representation, whatever the
source, and because this duty applies to former as well as current clients, the inquirer must not
disclose confidential information without the client’s informed consent.
The preamble to Chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar defines informed
consent as “the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has
communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably
available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.”
Therefore, if the inquirer chooses to respond to the negative online review and the
inquirer does not obtain the former client’s informed consent to reveal confidential information,
the inquirer must not reveal confidential information regarding the representation, but must only
respond in a general way, such as that the inquirer disagrees with the client’s statements. The
inquirer should not disclose that the court entered an order allowing the inquirer to withdraw
because that is information relating to the client’s representation and the client did not give
informed consent for the inquirer to disclose.
The inquirer refers to Texas Ethics Opinion 622. That opinion explains that a lawyer may
not respond to client’s negative internet review if the response discloses confidential
information. The opinion gives an example of a proportional and restrained response that does
not reveal any confidential information:
A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions and in an
abundance of caution I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point by point fashion
in this forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the post presents a fair and
accurate picture of the events.
The suggested language found in Texas Ethics Opinion 622 would be an acceptable
response for the inquirer. The inquirer also may state that the inquirer disagrees with the facts
stated in the review in an alternative response as follows:
As an attorney, I am constrained by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar from
responding in detail, but I will simply state that it is my belief that the
[comments/post] present neither a fair nor accurate picture of what occurred and I
believe that the [comments/post] [is/are] false.