Can a North Carolina lawyer use an online service that solicits client reviews and posts only 4- and 5-star ratings while keeping lower ratings private?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses Repsight.com, a paid service that solicits client reviews for lawyers. After a representation ends, the lawyer enters the client's email or phone number and the service asks the client to rate the lawyer from one to five stars. A rating of three stars or less is routed to a private feedback form the lawyer sees but that is not posted publicly; a rating of four or five stars sends the client to the lawyer's public Google review page with five stars pre-populated.

The opinion concludes a lawyer may participate if conditions are met. Because a client's name and contact information are confidential under Rule 1.6(a), the lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent (as defined in Rule 1.0(f)) before giving that information to the service. To get informed consent and avoid misrepresentation, the lawyer must explain that he uses the service and disclose how it works: that he pays a monthly fee, that he will give the service the client's contact information after the representation, that the service will contact the client, that only 4- and 5-star reviews are posted publicly, and that ratings of three stars or less are shared only with the lawyer and not posted anywhere online (citing Rule 1.4 and Rule 8.4(c)).

The opinion separately concludes the lawyer need not post all reviews, including those of three stars or less, provided the lawyer does not deceive the client about how negative reviews are treated and adequately explains that low ratings will not be posted (Rule 8.4(c)). Finally, where a lawyer addresses a client's concerns and the client agrees to revise a negative review, the lawyer may direct the service to obtain and post the revised review, but there can be no quid pro quo for the revised review (Rule 7.2(b)), the lawyer may not solicit or assist fake, false, or misleading reviews (Rule 8.4(c)), and the lawyer may not threaten, bully, or harass the client into a positive review (Rule 8.4, cmt. [5]).

In practice

Under the North Carolina rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, using a review-solicitation service of this kind is permitted on stated conditions. The opinion treats the client's contact information as confidential under Rule 1.6(a), so the lawyer must obtain informed consent before releasing it and must disclose the full mechanics of the service, including that only 4- and 5-star reviews are posted publicly and that lower ratings stay private with the lawyer.

The opinion concludes that filtering out low ratings is not itself improper, so long as the client is not deceived and the treatment of negative reviews is adequately explained. Per the opinion, a lawyer may have a revised positive review posted after addressing a client's concerns only where there is no quid pro quo, no solicitation or assistance of fake or misleading reviews, and no threatening, bullying, or harassing the client.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina lawyer use a service like Repsight that only posts positive reviews?

A: Yes, if conditions are met. Opinion #1 permits participation if the lawyer obtains the client's informed consent to release contact information and discloses how the service works.

Q: What does the lawyer have to tell the client before using the service?

A: Opinion #1 requires disclosing that the lawyer pays a monthly fee, will give the service the client's contact information after the representation, that the service will contact the client, that only 4- and 5-star reviews are posted publicly, and that ratings of three stars or less are shared only with the lawyer and not posted online (Rule 1.4; Rule 8.4(c)).

Q: Is it deceptive to suppress reviews of three stars or less?

A: Not necessarily. Opinion #2 concludes the lawyer need not post low ratings, provided the lawyer does not deceive the client about how negative reviews are treated and adequately explains that they will not be posted (Rule 8.4(c)).

Q: If a client agrees to change a negative review, can the lawyer have it reposted?

A: Yes, subject to limits. Opinion #3 permits it if there is no quid pro quo (Rule 7.2(b)), the lawyer does not solicit or assist fake or misleading reviews (Rule 8.4(c)), and the lawyer does not threaten, bully, or harass the client (Rule 8.4, cmt. [5]).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets confidentiality, communication, and advertising rules together. Rule 1.6(a) (Model Rule 1.6) makes a client's identity and contact information confidential absent informed consent, which Rule 1.0(f) (Model Rule 1.0) defines as agreement after adequate information and explanation. Rule 1.4 (Model Rule 1.4) governs communication with the client, supporting the disclosure obligation. Rule 7.2(b) (Model Rule 7.2) bars giving anything of value for a recommendation, which the opinion applies to a quid pro quo for a revised review. Rule 8.4(c) (Model Rule 8.4) prohibits dishonesty and misrepresentation, and comment [5] supports the bar on coercing a client into a positive review.

The opinion situates the analysis within 2018 FEO 1, which addressed a lawyer's participation in directories and rating systems and the treatment of third-party reviews.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / NC Rule 1.6(a) (confidentiality of client information)
• Model Rule 1.0 / NC Rule 1.0(f) (definition of informed consent)
• Model Rule 1.4 / NC Rule 1.4 (communication with the client)
• Model Rule 7.2 / NC Rule 7.2(b) (nothing of value for a recommendation)
• Model Rule 8.4 / NC Rule 8.4(c) and cmt. [5] (dishonesty; misrepresentation)

Other opinions cited:

• 2018 FEO 1: participation in website directories and rating systems; third-party reviews.

See also

• NC State Bar Op. 2018 FEO 1: Website Directories and Third-Party Reviews
• NY State Bar Op. 1052: Paying Clients to Rate the Lawyer Online
• ABA Formal Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
• 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-7/

Original opinion text

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

Repsight.com is an online service that offers to help lawyers accumulate more positive client reviews. Repsight contends that positive client reviews give law firms added credibility with potential customers and help increase search rankings in Google searches. For a monthly fee, Repsight will contact a client via text or email to solicit a review from the client. The number of contacts made by Repsight is based on the amount of the monthly fee.

After completing legal services for a client, the lawyer will log in to Repsight.com and enter the client’s email address or phone number and presses the “send” button. Repsight then sends the client a text or an email thanking the client for the client’s business and asks the client to click a button to rate the lawyer’s services. The client then chooses between 1 and 5 stars, with 5 stars being the highest rating. If the client rates the lawyer 3 stars or less, Repsight redirects the client to a private feedback form. The lawyer will receive the client’s comments, but the comments will not be posted on the lawyer’s Google review page. If the client gives the lawyer a 4- or 5-star review, the client is redirected to the lawyer’s Google review page (with 5 stars already populated) so that the client can leave the lawyer a positive review.

Inquiry #1:

May a lawyer participate in the Repsight service?

Opinion #1:

Yes, if certain conditions are met.

A client’s name and contact information are confidential and may not be revealed unless the client gives informed consent. Rule 1.6(a). Before the lawyer may provide a client’s contact information to Repsight, the lawyer must obtain the client’s informed consent. “Informed consent” denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation appropriate to the circumstances. Rule 1.0(f).

To obtain the client’s informed consent and to avoid misrepresentation, the lawyer must explain to the client that the lawyer uses Repsight. The lawyer is also obligated to disclose Repsight’s process, to wit: the lawyer pays a monthly fee for Repsight services; the lawyer will provide the client’s name and contact information to Repsight after the representation has concluded; Repsight will contact the client regarding the review; only 4- and 5-star reviews will be posted on Google and other internet search engines; and 3 stars or less reviews will be shared with the lawyer, but will not be posted by Repsight or the lawyer anywhere on the internet. See Rule 1.4; Rule 8.4(c).

Inquiry #2:

If a lawyer obtains the client’s informed consent to provide the client’s contact information to Repsight, must the lawyer post or direct Repsight to post all reviews, including reviews of 3 stars or less?

Opinion #2:

No, provided the lawyer does not deceive the client about the treatment of negative reviews and adequately explains that reviews of 3 stars or less will not be posted on the internet. See Rule 8.4(c).

Inquiry #3:

When a client gives a lawyer a negative review, the lawyer may contact the client to address the client’s concerns. If after the communication the client agrees to change the negative review and provide a 4- or 5-star review, may the lawyer direct Repsight to contact the client to obtain and post the revised review?

Opinion #3:

Yes, subject to certain conditions. There can be no quid pro quo for the revised review. See Rule 7.2(b). Also, the lawyer may not solicit, encourage, or assist in the posting of fake, false, or misleading reviews. See Rule 8.4(c). Finally, the lawyer may not threaten, bully, or harass the client to provide a positive 4- or 5-star review. See Rule 8.4, cmt. [5]. See generally 2018 FEO 1.