Can a North Carolina lawyer claim a profile on Avvo, Google, or LinkedIn, pay to be listed, and what must the lawyer do about third-party reviews?

Plain-English summary

The opinion answers ten inquiries about a lawyer's participation in online directories and lawyer-rating systems such as Google My Business, LinkedIn, and Avvo. The throughline is Rule 7.1(a): a lawyer may claim a profile, supply profile information, and pay the reasonable cost of a directory listing under Rule 7.2(b), so long as the information the lawyer provides and the profile as presented are truthful and not misleading.

For rating systems, the opinion adds two conditions: the lawyer may not pay for a rating, and before voluntarily providing information the lawyer must determine that the system uses objective, verifiable standards that a reasonable lawyer would recognize as a legitimate basis for evaluation, with those standards disclosed where a website user can readily find them. The opinion grounds this in 2003 FEO 3 and 2007 FEO 14.

The opinion draws a line between a lawyer's own communications and third-party content. The lawyer is professionally responsible for claims the website makes about the lawyer (for example "top rated" or "the best"), because under Rule 7.1(a)(3) an unsubstantiated comparison to other lawyers is misleading; a lawyer may participate in such a directory only where objective, verifiable standards are applied and disclosed. A lawyer may ask clients to post reviews if there is no quid pro quo (Rule 7.2(b)), and may never solicit or assist fake or misleading reviews (Rule 8.4(c)).

For reviews written by others, the opinion concludes a lawyer is responsible only for content she is aware of or reasonably should be aware of. Opinion statements ("awesome," "the best") need no action. A review containing a material misstatement of objective fact (the example given is a false statement that the lawyer obtained a million-dollar settlement) must be removed, edited, or disclaimed; if the website refuses, the lawyer must withdraw from the site and seek removal of the profile. There is no duty to seek removal of negative reviews the lawyer believes are false, though the lawyer may do so, and Rule 1.6(a) cautions against disclosing confidential client information when responding.

In practice

Under the North Carolina rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, conduct that matches the opinion's fact patterns is treated as follows. Claiming a profile and paying for a directory listing is permitted when the lawyer's information and the profile are truthful and not misleading. Providing information to a rating system is permitted only where the lawyer pays nothing for the rating and the system's standards are objective, verifiable, and disclosed. A "top rated" or "best" label on participating lawyers is a comparison that, per the opinion, requires objective, verifiable, disclosed standards under 2007 FEO 14.

The opinion holds that responsibility for third-party reviews turns on the lawyer's awareness: a lawyer who has abandoned a profile and is unaware of its reviews has no professional responsibility for that content, but once aware (or reasonably should be aware) of a material factual misstatement, the lawyer must seek its removal, correction, or a disclaimer, and must leave the site if the site will not cooperate. The opinion characterizes a paid "Pro" upgrade as permissible only if an explanation of the designation appears prominently wherever it appears.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina lawyer claim a profile on Avvo, Google, or LinkedIn?

A: Yes. Opinion #1 permits a lawyer to claim or set up a profile and provide profile information, so long as the information provided and the profile as presented are truthful and not misleading under Rule 7.1(a).

Q: Can a lawyer pay to be listed in an online directory?

A: Yes. Opinion #2 treats a directory listing as advertising, and Rule 7.2(b) permits a lawyer to pay the reasonable costs of advertisements.

Q: Can a lawyer pay for a rating or a higher rating on a rating site?

A: No. Opinion #3 states that no money may be paid for a rating. The lawyer may provide truthful information only after determining that the rating system uses objective, verifiable standards that are disclosed to the public where users can readily find them.

Q: Is a lawyer responsible if a directory labels her "top rated" or "the best"?

A: Yes. Opinion #4 holds the lawyer is responsible for such claims because, under Rule 7.1(a)(3), an unsubstantiated comparison to other lawyers is misleading. A lawyer may participate only where the directory applies and discloses objective, verifiable standards as required by 2007 FEO 14.

Q: Does a lawyer have to remove a negative review she thinks is false?

A: No. Opinion #9 finds no duty to remove a negative review, because there is no risk of creating unjustified expectations; the lawyer may seek removal to protect her reputation but, per Rule 1.6(a), must avoid disclosing confidential client information when responding.

Q: What must a lawyer do about a review that misstates a fact, like a fake settlement figure?

A: Opinion #6 requires the lawyer to have the review removed or edited to delete the misstatement, or to post a disclaimer. Under Opinion #8, if the website refuses, the lawyer must withdraw from the website and seek removal of the profile.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets North Carolina's lawyer-advertising rules. Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, communications concerning a lawyer's services) prohibits false or misleading communications and, in Rule 7.1(a)(3), treats an unsubstantiated comparison of a lawyer's services with other lawyers' services as misleading; comment [3] explains that an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead if presented with specificity suggesting it can be substantiated. Rule 7.2(b) (Model Rule 7.2) permits paying the reasonable costs of advertisements but bars giving anything of value for a recommendation.

Rule 8.4(c) (Model Rule 8.4) prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, which the opinion applies to fake or misleading reviews. Rule 1.6(a) (Model Rule 1.6) governs confidentiality, which the opinion invokes as a limit on how a lawyer may respond to negative reviews. The opinion relies on 2003 FEO 3 and 2007 FEO 14 for the standard that a lawyer may participate in a rating or listing system only where its standards are objective, verifiable, and disclosed.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / NC Rule 7.1(a), 7.1(a)(2), 7.1(a)(3) and cmt. [3] (false or misleading communications; unsubstantiated comparisons)
• Model Rule 7.2 / NC Rule 7.2(b) (paying for advertising; nothing of value for a recommendation)
• Model Rule 8.4 / NC Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation)
• Model Rule 1.6 / NC Rule 1.6(a) (confidentiality of information)

Other opinions cited:

• 2003 FEO 3: objective, verifiable standards for rating systems.
• 2007 FEO 14 (advertising inclusion in lists such as North Carolina Super Lawyers): standards must be objective, verifiable, and disclosed.

See also

• CA COPRAC Op. 2019-199: Online Directory Profiles
• ABA Formal Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
• NY State Bar Op. 1052: Paying Clients to Rate the Lawyer Online
• NJ ACPE Op. 738: Responding to Negative Online Reviews
• Colorado Bar Op. 136: Responding to Online Reviews

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-1/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry #1:

May a lawyer “claim her profile” or set up a profile on a website directory or business listing service such as Google’s My Business, LinkedIn, or Avvo and provide information for inclusion in the profile?

Opinion #1:

Yes, if the information provided by the lawyer and as presented in the profile is truthful and not misleading. Rule 7.1(a).

Inquiry #2:

May a lawyer pay to be included in a website directory of lawyers?

Opinion #2:

Yes. A lawyer may pay the reasonable costs of advertisements. Rule 7.2(b).

Inquiry #3:

May a lawyer provide profile information to a website that will use the information to rate the lawyer in an online lawyer rating system?

Opinion #3:

Yes, if the information provided by the lawyer is truthful and not misleading. Rule 7.1(a). In addition, no money may be paid by the lawyer for a rating and, before voluntarily providing information to a rating system, the lawyer must determine that the rating system uses objective standards that are verifiable and would be recognized by a reasonable lawyer as establishing a legitimate basis for evaluating the lawyer’s services. See, e.g., 2003 FEO 3 and 2007 FEO 14. Further, the standards for the rating system must be disclosed to the public at a location on the website that a user of the website can readily find.

Inquiry #4:

If a lawyer participates in a website directory, is the lawyer professionally responsible for claims on the website about participating lawyers such as statements that the participating lawyers are “top rated” or “the best”?

Opinion #4:

Yes, the lawyer is professionally responsible for statements or claims made about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services and may not participate in any communication about the lawyer that is false or misleading in violation of Rule 7.1.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(a)(3), a communication is false or misleading if it “compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.” Further explanation of this prohibition is set out in comment [3] to Rule 7.1 which states that “[a]n unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated.” Characterizing lawyers listed in a website directory as “top rated” or “the best” is a comparison of the participating lawyers’ services with those of other lawyers. A lawyer may not participate in such a directory unless objective, verifiable standards for participation, as required by 2007 FEO 14, Advertising Inclusion in List in North Carolina Super Lawyers and Other Similar Publications, are applied and disclosed by the website.

Inquiry #5:

A website directory that permits lawyers to “claim their profiles” also allows consumers—usually present and former clients—to post “reviews” of a lawyer on the lawyer’s profile page. May a lawyer ask present or former clients to post reviews on her profile page?

Opinion #5:

Yes, as long as there is no quid pro quo. Rule 7.2(b) (a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services). Under no circumstances may a lawyer solicit, encourage, or assist in the posting of fake, false, or misleading reviews. Rule 8.4(c).

Inquiry #6:

When a client is pleased with the lawyer and her services, the client’s posted review on the lawyer’s profile or webpage may contain hyperbolic accolades such as the lawyer was “the best,” “awesome,” “the smartest,” “the toughest,” etc. Is a lawyer required to seek the removal of any such review?

Opinion #6:

No. Most users of the Internet understand that reviews by third parties generally contain statements of opinion, not fact. To the extent that a third party review is a statement of opinion about the lawyer or her services, the lawyer is not professionally responsible for the statement and does not have to disclaim the review or take action to have the review removed or redacted from the lawyer’s profile or webpage. However, Rule 7.1(a) (2) and (3) prohibit a lawyer from engaging in misleading communications that create unjustified expectations or that compare a lawyer’s services with the services of other lawyers unless the comparison can be factually substantiated. If a review contains a material misstatement of objective fact, however, the lawyer must take action to have the review removed or edited to delete the misstatement, or to post a disclaimer. For example, the lawyer must take action to remove, redact, or disclaim a review that falsely states that the lawyer obtained a million dollar settlement.

Inquiry #7:

Lawyer A, at the urging of a marketing firm, initially claimed her website profile or set up business pages on a number of websites like Facebook. However, she tired of posting to the profiles and pages, and soon ceased to visit the majority of them altogether. Most of the profiles and website pages allow for third party reviews that Lawyer A no longer reads. Is Lawyer A responsible for the content of the reviews posted on these website profiles and pages?

Opinion #7:

No, a lawyer is professionally responsible only for third-party content about the lawyer of which the lawyer is aware or reasonably should be aware. The lawyer is not required to monitor online profiles or pages if the lawyer does not visit the website, post to that website, or otherwise actively participate in the website. If a lawyer has abandoned a profile or webpage and the lawyer is unaware of the content of the reviews posted on the profile or webpage, the lawyer has no professional responsibility relative to that content. However, if the lawyer becomes aware, or reasonably should be aware, that material misstatements of fact are included in reviews posted on her profile or webpage, the lawyer is professionally responsible and must take action to have the offensive content removed or an explanatory disclaimer posted.

Inquiry #8:

A lawyer determines that third-party generated content on her profile on an online directory contains material misstatements of fact and that she is professionally responsible for seeking to remove or disclaim the misstatements. When she asks the website to remove the content or post an explanatory disclaimer, the website refuses to do so. What should the lawyer do?

Opinion #8:

The lawyer must withdraw from participation in the website and seek to have the lawyer’s profile or page on the website removed.

Inquiry #9:

Is a lawyer required to seek the removal of negative reviews that the lawyer perceives to be false or misleading?

Opinion #9:

Because there is no risk of creating unjustified expectations, there is no duty to correct or seek removal of a negative review posted on a lawyer’s profile or website page. Nevertheless, the lawyer may seek removal of negative reviews to protect the lawyer’s reputation. Lawyers are cautioned to avoid disclosing confidential client information when responding to a negative review. See Rule 1.6(a).

Inquiry #10:

For a monthly fee, a website offers a premium service called “Pro” that is promoted as enabling a lawyer to “upgrade” the lawyer’s profile on the website. This service provides the following benefits according to the website: no competitive ads will be shown on the lawyer’s profile page; the lawyer’s contact information is shown in a search result; the lawyer can see who is contacting her by phone, email, or on her website; the lawyer can select the best reviews and promote them at the top of the profile page; and the lawyer can write her own headline at the top of her profile. In addition, under the lawyer’s photo, whether it appears on the lawyer’s profile page or in a search result, the word “Pro” appears. On search results, a sidebar states that “Pro” indicates that information is “verified.” May a lawyer subscribe to this service?

Opinion #10:

Yes, if the information on the profile page continues to be truthful and not misleading and an explanation of the “Pro” designation appears in a prominent location beside or near the designation wherever the designation appears on the lawyer’s profile or webpages. In the absence of the explanation that the designation indicates that the lawyer paid for enhanced services, the designation implies that lawyers without the designation are not professional or “Pro.” This is a comparison of the lawyer’s services with the services of other lawyers that cannot be factually substantiated in violation of Rule 7.1(a)(3). If the website does not post the explanation, the lawyer must do so or must discontinue the premium service.

In addition, to avoid misleading users, if only selected reviews can be read by a user, there must be an explanation that the lawyer has selected the best reviews to promote. If there is an implication that the selected reviews are the only reviews that the lawyer has received or, if the lawyer has received unfavorable reviews and the profile page falsely implies that the “promoted reviews” are typical, there must be an explanation.