Can a Florida lawyer respond to a negative online review posted by someone who was never a client?
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-1: Online Reviews From Non-Clients
Short answer: A Florida lawyer may respond to a negative online review by a person who is not a current or former client, but only if the response reveals no confidential information; the lawyer may state that the poster is not a client and that ethics rules constrain the reply.
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
This opinion is the companion to Florida Opinion 20-1 and addresses negative online reviews posted by people who are not current or former clients, such as a relative or friend of a client, an opposing party, or someone with no connection to the lawyer at all. The committee applies Rule 4-1.6 and its comment, under which all information relating to a client's representation is confidential whatever its source.
The opinion concludes that even when the reviewer is not a client, the lawyer must still determine whether a proposed response would reveal confidential information about an actual client. If it would not, the lawyer may reply, including by stating that the person who posted is not a current or former client and that the lawyer is constrained by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar but believes the comments are not accurate. The opinion notes that a lawyer owes no ethical duty to a nonclient reviewer.
Quoting ABA Formal Opinion 496, the opinion cautions that where a negative post comes from an opposing party, opposing counsel, or a client's friend or family member and relates to an actual representation, the lawyer may not disclose any information relating to that representation without informed consent, because even a general disclaimer can reveal the lawyer's involvement and thereby disclose confidential information.
In practice
Under this opinion, a Florida lawyer responding to a non-client review may reply only if the response discloses no confidential information about an actual client. The opinion makes the controlling question whether the reply would reveal client-related information, not the identity of the reviewer; where the post traces back to an actual representation, the opinion treats even a general denial as a potential disclosure. The permitted response is to note, if true, that the poster is not a client and that ethics rules constrain a detailed reply.
Common questions
Q: A non-client posted a false review. Can the Florida lawyer respond?
A: Yes, if the response reveals no confidential client information. The opinion concludes a lawyer owes no ethical duty to a nonclient reviewer and may state that the poster is not a current or former client and that the lawyer believes the comments are inaccurate.
Q: What if the reviewer is the client's relative or the opposing party?
A: The opinion, quoting ABA Formal Opinion 496, concludes that if the post relates to an actual representation, the lawyer may not disclose information relating to that representation without informed consent, because even a general disclaimer can reveal the lawyer's involvement.
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 subdivision (c) and the comment treating all information relating to the representation as confidential. It builds directly on Florida Opinion 20-1, which addressed reviews by clients and former clients.
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)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Op. 496 (2021): responding to online criticism
- Fla. Ethics Op. 20-1: responding to client and former-client reviews
See also
- Florida Bar Op. 20-1: Responding to Negative Online Reviews
- Florida Bar Op. 25-1: Listservs and Client Confidentiality
- Ohio BPC Op. 2016-008: Client Testimonials and Online Reviews
Source
- Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-21-1/
- Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2021/12/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-21-1.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 21-1
June 10, 2021
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may not disclose information concerning a client’s representation without the
client’s informed consent when responding to negative online reviews posted by individuals who
are not current clients or former clients. If accurate, the lawyer may state that the person who
made the post is not a current client or former client. The lawyer may generally note that the
comments in the review are inaccurate but that the lawyer’s response is constrained by the
lawyer’s ethical obligations.
RPC: 4-1.6; 4-1.6(c)
Opinions: 20-1; ABA Formal Opinion 496
The Professional Ethics Committee has been asked by the Board of Governors of The
Florida Bar to give an opinion on Florida Bar members responding to negative online reviews
posted by individuals that are not clients or former client.
Negative online reviews are becoming more common. Florida Ethics Opinion 20-1
discusses a lawyer’s response to a client or former client’s negative online review.
Besides clients or former client, often a third party who is close to the client or former
client will post a negative review about the lawyer. Occasionally, someone who lacks a
connection even to the lawyer will post a negative review.
Rule 4-1.6 is the rule regarding confidentiality of information. 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.
If a lawyer wants to respond to a negative online post by someone who is not a client or
former client, the lawyer must still determine whether the response reveals confidential
information about a client. If true, a lawyer may respond by stating that the person posting is
not a client or former client. A lawyer may also state: “As a lawyer, I am constrained by the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar in responding, but I will simply state that it is my belief that
the comments are not accurate.” A lawyer owes no ethical duties to a person who is not a client
or former client posting a negative online review. However, ABA Formal Opinion 496 warns
that “a lawyer must use caution in responding to posts from nonclients.” It further states:
If the negative commentary is by a former opposing party or opposing counsel, or
a former client’s friend or family member, and relates to an actual representation,
the lawyer may not disclose any information relating to the client or former
client’s representation without the client or former client’s informed consent.
Even a general disclaimer that the events are not accurately portrayed may reveal
that the lawyer was involved in the events mentioned, which could disclose
confidential client information. The lawyer is free to seek informed consent of the
client or former client to respond, particularly where responding might be in the
client or former client’s best interests. In doing so, it would be prudent to discuss
the proposed content of the response with the client or former client.
In conclusion, when responding to a negative online review by someone who is not a
client or former client, the lawyer must still consider Rule 4-1.6 and determine whether the
response would reveal confidential information regarding a client or former client’s matter. A
lawyer may respond in a way that does not reveal confidential information about a client or
former client. If true, a lawyer may respond that the poster is not a client or a former client.