Can a North Carolina lawyer offer a prize drawing to people who like, follow, or share the law firm's social media account?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a lawyer who wants to boost social media exposure by entering anyone who connects with or interacts with the firm's account (a like, follow, subscription, comment, or share) into a prize drawing. The committee concludes the lawyer may not do so where the platform broadcasts or displays that activity to other users.

The first ground is Rule 7.2(b), which bars a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. On platforms like Facebook, a user's "like" or follow of a law practice is displayed not only on the user's feed but on the feeds of the user's connections, sometimes captioned as an endorsement ("Jane Smith likes No Name law firm"). The opinion reasons that, without context, other users could interpret a "like" as a personal endorsement and recommendation, so offering a prize chance in exchange for a like that the platform broadcasts violates Rule 7.2(b).

The second ground is Rule 7.1(a), which prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services. The purpose of Rule 7.2(b)'s prohibition is to ensure recommendations rest on actual experience or legitimate opinion rather than financial incentive. The credibility of a social media account can be influenced by its number of followers, and a displayed "like" may suggest prior experience with the practice. When the like, follow, or interaction is driven by a prize giveaway rather than experience, the incentivized and displayed activity is misleading in violation of Rule 7.1(a). The opinion adds that it does not prohibit a lawyer from having a social media presence or from inviting non-incentivized likes, shares, follows, or other interaction.

In practice

Under the North Carolina rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a lawyer may not offer a prize incentive for social media activity (liking, following, sharing, commenting) where the platform broadcasts that activity to other users. The opinion treats a broadcast "like" as something a viewer could read as a personal recommendation, so paying for it through a prize chance is giving something of value for a recommendation under Rule 7.2(b), and the incentivized, displayed like is misleading under Rule 7.1(a).

The opinion holds that this does not bar a lawyer or firm from maintaining a social media presence or from encouraging or inviting users to like, share, follow, or otherwise interact with the account. Per the opinion, non-incentivized social media interactions are not prohibited.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina lawyer run a giveaway for people who like or follow the firm's page?

A: No, where the platform broadcasts the activity. The opinion concludes that offering a prize chance for a like, follow, or share that the platform displays to other users violates Rule 7.2(b) and Rule 7.1(a).

Q: Why is paying for a "like" a problem under Rule 7.2(b)?

A: Because a displayed "like" can be read by other users as a personal endorsement and recommendation of the law practice, so offering a prize for it is giving something of value for recommending the lawyer's services.

Q: Why is the incentivized like also misleading under Rule 7.1(a)?

A: The opinion reasons that a displayed "like" may suggest prior experience with the practice and influence the account's perceived credibility; when the like is driven by a prize rather than experience, it is misleading.

Q: Can a lawyer still ask people to follow the firm's account?

A: Yes. The opinion states it does not prohibit a social media presence or encouraging non-incentivized likes, shares, follows, or interaction; only the prize incentive for broadcast activity is barred.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets two North Carolina advertising rules. Rule 7.2(b) (Model Rule 7.2) prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, which the committee applies to a prize offered for a broadcast social media "like" or follow that reads as an endorsement. Rule 7.1(a) (Model Rule 7.1) prohibits false or misleading communications, including a material misrepresentation or the omission of a fact necessary to keep the communication from being materially misleading; the opinion treats an incentivized, displayed like as misleading because it implies experience-based endorsement where none exists.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.2 / NC Rule 7.2(b) (nothing of value for recommending the lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.1 / NC Rule 7.1(a) (false or misleading communications)

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 873: Offering a Prize to Join the Lawyer's Social Network
• NC State Bar Op. 2018 FEO 7: Online Review Solicitation Service
• NY State Bar Op. 1052: Paying Clients to Rate the Lawyer Online

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2019-formal-ethics-opinion-6/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

Lawyer maintains an account for his law practice on various social media platforms. These platforms allow social media users to “connect” with other users, including both individuals and business-related entities, through the use of “likes,” “follows,” and “subscriptions”. Some platforms also allow users to comment on posted content or share posted content on their own social networks.

To increase his social media exposure, Lawyer wants to offer a prize incentive to anyone who connects or interacts with any of his social media platforms. All users who connect or interact with Lawyer’s law practice social media account will be entered into a drawing for a prize. The giveaway is open to all users of the social media platform used by Lawyer.

May Lawyer offer an incentive to all social media users to connect or interact with Lawyer’s law practice social media account?

Opinion:

No. If a social media platform will broadcast or display a user’s connection or interaction with Lawyer’s law practice social media account to other users of the platform, Lawyer may not offer prize chances in exchange for activity on or with his social media accounts.

Generally, lawyers may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. Rule 7.2(b). Certain social media platforms, such as Facebook, allow users to connect with or otherwise follow a business or service entity’s social media account by “liking” the entity on the social media platform. Similarly, users may also comment on or share social media posts made by the business or service entity’s account. The user’s decision to “like” or follow the entity and the user’s comments on the entity’s posts are then displayed not only within the user’s social media feed, but can also be displayed on the feeds of other users who have previously connected with that user. Also, when an individual “likes” a business’ social media page, that business’ posts/advertisements may appear in the individual’s social media feed and may appear in the news feeds of the individual’s other “friends” or connections with a caption such as “Jane Smith likes No Name law firm.”

Without further context, other users could interpret an individual “liking” a law practice as a personal endorsement and recommendation of that law practice. If the social media platform broadcasts the user’s “like” of the law practice on other users’ social media feeds, Lawyer’s offer of an entry in a giveaway for a prize to social media users in exchange for the user “liking” the law practice’s social media account violates Rule 7.2(b).

Additionally, a lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. Rule 7.1(a). A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. Id. The purpose behind Rule 7.2(b)’s prohibition on offering something of value in exchange for recommending services is to ensure that recommendations for a lawyer’s services are based upon actual experiences or legitimate opinions of the lawyer’s service, rather than financial incentive. The displayed “like” of a law practice may indicate some prior experience with the law practice or the personnel associated with the practice upon which the user’s “liking” of the practice is based. Similarly, the credibility attributed to a particular social media account could be influenced by the number of account followers or subscribers. When the “like” or follow of a law practice’s social media account is based upon the user’s interest in a prize giveaway, the incentivized “like,” follow, or other interaction received by Lawyer and displayed on social media is misleading in violation of Rule 7.1(a).

This opinion does not prohibit a lawyer or law firm from having a social media presence, or encouraging or inviting other users to like, share, follow, or otherwise interact with the lawyer’s or law firm’s social media account. Non-incentivized social media interactions are not prohibited.