When can third-party comments, tags, or endorsements on an Indiana lawyer's social media create ethics violations?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2020. Ask about yours and see what the current Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 1-20 applies Indiana's ethics rules to comments, tags, testimonials, endorsements, and other additions made by third parties on a lawyer's social-media pages. Rule 1.1's technology-competence duty and Rule 8.4(a)'s prohibition on violating the rules through another person's acts require awareness and active management of the account.
Third-party praise can violate Rule 7.1 when it creates an unjustified expectation, even if the underlying statement is truthful. An endorsement claiming a specialty can violate Rule 7.4 when the claimed specialty is not authorized. The opinion requires clarification or deletion of such content.
Staff posts can reveal client information without consent or exceed the limits on trial publicity. Rules 5.1 and 5.3 make lawyers responsible for appropriate supervision, while Rules 1.6, 3.6, and 3.8 govern the content. A lawyer who likes or responds approvingly to a prohibited post may adopt it; leaving the content in place can also be treated as acquiescence.
For prosecutors, public comments about pending criminal matters receive special attention because social media can spread widely and persist. The opinion identifies disabling comments or publishing clear comment rules with regular monitoring and removal as methods for preventing third-party content from heightening condemnation of an accused or prejudicing proceedings.
In practice
Under this opinion, the lawyer's duty is not limited to personally authored content. The analysis also covers account settings, staff activity, tags, comments, endorsements, the lawyer's reactions, and what the lawyer does after learning that prohibited material appears.
Common questions
Q: Can a former client post a glowing testimonial on the lawyer's page?
A: The opinion states that even truthful third-party statements can violate Rule 7.1 if they create an unjustified expectation that the lawyer could not create directly.
Q: What if another lawyer endorses an unauthorized specialty?
A: The opinion applies Rule 7.4 and requires the page owner to cure the problem through clarification or deletion.
Q: Can liking a comment make the lawyer responsible for it?
A: Yes. The opinion states that a response or like can be treated as adoption of prohibited third-party content.
Q: Does doing nothing create a risk?
A: Yes. Failure to remove prohibited content can be viewed as acquiescence or adoption.
Q: What duties apply to staff posts?
A: Rules 5.1 and 5.3 require supervision, and the opinion applies confidentiality and trial-publicity rules to posts made by staff or subordinate lawyers.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Indiana Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.6, 3.8, 5.1, 5.3, 7.1, 7.4, and 8.4(a). It treats a lawyer's social-media page as a communication channel the lawyer must monitor and correct when third parties add ethically prohibited material.
Citations and references
Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.6, 3.8, 5.1, 5.3, 7.1, 7.4, and 8.4(a)
See also
- Indiana Advisory Op. 1-22: Public Comments on Pending Matters
- Illinois Ethics Op. 18-01: Email Tracking Software
- Colorado Ethics Op. 148: Reply All and Group Email
Source
- Landing page: Indiana attorney advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 1-20
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2020. Ezel checks the current Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace