Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2015-03-02

Can a New York lawyer reply to someone's online post asking for a lawyer, and can a lawyer post on Reddit or Twitter to find plaintiffs for a case?

Short answer: A lawyer may respond, in the manner invited, to a potential client who posts online asking to be contacted; that response is not solicitation, though describing the lawyer's services to secure retention is advertising subject to Rule 7.1. A lawyer may also post to find plaintiffs, but if the post references a specific incident it becomes a solicitation under Rule 7.3, and personal-injury or wrongful-death posts are subject to the cooling-off period.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2015
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1049: Responding to and posting online requests on social media

Short answer: A lawyer may respond, in the manner invited, to a potential client who posts online asking to be contacted, and that response is not solicitation; a lawyer may also post on a site like Reddit or Twitter to find plaintiffs, but a post referencing a specific incident becomes a solicitation under Rule 7.3 and may fall within the personal-injury cooling-off period.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association'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. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

The inquirer uses sites like Reddit and Twitter where members post questions, and asked two things: whether a lawyer may reply to a non-lawyer who posts about a legal problem and asks to be contacted by a lawyer, and whether a lawyer may post an invitation for people who experienced a particular problem to contact him to find plaintiffs (¶¶ 1-3).

On the first question, the committee explained the threshold turns on whether the contact is "advertising" under Rule 1.0(a) or, additionally, "solicitation" under Rule 7.3(b) (¶ 5). Solicitation is an advertisement initiated by the lawyer and directed at a specific recipient; a communication made in response to a potential client's own inquiry is not solicitation, a distinction made explicit in Comment [2] to Rule 7.3 (¶¶ 6-8). So when a potential client posts asking to be contacted, the lawyer may respond in the manner invited (by Twitter or email if that was invited, but not by telephone if it was not), and that response is not solicitation (¶¶ 10-11, citing N.Y. State 1014). A reply that merely discusses the client's legal problem is not even advertising, but a reply describing the lawyer's or firm's services to secure retention is advertising, which must comply with Rule 7.1's labeling, retention, and office-address requirements (¶¶ 12-14). The committee cautioned that the advertising definition is applied with common sense: ordinary back-and-forth such as proposed retainer terms or answers about the lawyer's qualifications need not be labeled "Attorney Advertising" (¶ 13, citing Comment [7] to Rule 7.1).

On the second question, the committee relied on N.Y. State 1009 that a post on a third-party site like Twitter or Reddit is not a real-time or interactive communication, so such a post does not generally constitute solicitation (¶ 15). But under Comment [4] to Rule 7.3, an advertisement becomes a solicitation if it refers to a specific person or group whose legal needs arise from a specific incident the advertisement explicitly references (¶ 16). Because the inquirer wanted plaintiffs for a potential case, a post referring to a particular incident would be a solicitation governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (including the Rule 7.3(c) filing requirement), and a post about a specific incident involving potential personal-injury or wrongful-death claims could be subject to the Rule 7.3(e) cooling-off period (¶ 17).

In practice

Under the New York rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee made the answer turn on who initiated the contact and on whether a post names a specific incident. A lawyer may answer a potential client's own online request in the manner the client invited, and that reply is not solicitation; if the reply only discusses the client's problem it is not advertising, while a reply pitching the lawyer's services to win the engagement is advertising subject to Rule 7.1's labeling, retention, and office-address rules. A general post seeking plaintiffs is not solicitation, but a post that explicitly references a specific incident becomes a solicitation subject to Rule 7.3, including the filing requirement, and a personal-injury or wrongful-death post tied to a specific incident may fall within the cooling-off period of Rule 7.3(e).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer reply to someone who posts online asking for a lawyer?

A: Yes. Because the potential client initiated the contact, the lawyer may respond in the manner invited, and that response is not solicitation under Rule 7.3 (¶¶ 10, 12).

Q: Does the lawyer's reply have to be labeled "Attorney Advertising"?

A: Only if it describes the lawyer's or firm's services to secure retention. A reply that merely discusses the client's legal problem is not advertising; one pitching the lawyer's services is advertising subject to Rule 7.1's labeling, retention, and office-address rules (¶ 12).

Q: Can a lawyer post on Reddit or Twitter to recruit plaintiffs?

A: Generally yes, because such a post is not a real-time or interactive communication and so is not solicitation by itself. But if the post explicitly refers to a specific incident, it becomes a solicitation governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (¶¶ 15-17).

Q: What if the case involves personal injury or wrongful death?

A: A post about a specific incident involving potential personal-injury or wrongful-death claims may be subject to the cooling-off (blackout) period in Rule 7.3(e), and the solicitation filing requirements of Rule 7.3(c) apply (¶ 17).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.3 (solicitation and recommendation of professional employment) and Rule 7.1 (advertising), together with the Rule 1.0(a) definition of "advertisement" and the Rule 1.0(c) definition of "computer-accessed communication," corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.3, 7.2, and 7.1. The analysis turns on the Rule 7.3(b) distinction between lawyer-initiated and client-initiated contact and on whether a public post explicitly references a specific incident.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 7.3 / NY RPC 7.3(a), (b), (c), (e) (solicitation; in-person and real-time limits; filing; cooling-off period)
  • MR 7.1 / NY RPC 7.1, 7.1(f), (h), (k) (advertising; labeling, retention, office-address)
  • NY RPC 1.0(a), 1.0(c) (definitions of "advertisement" and "computer-accessed communication")

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 1014 (2014): a response to a client-initiated contact is not solicitation; reply only in the manner invited
  • N.Y. State 1009: a post on a third-party site is not a real-time or interactive communication
  • N.Y. City 2000-1: a response to a client-initiated request for proposal is neither advertising nor solicitation

See also

Source