Can a lawyer give clients a credit on their bill in exchange for rating the lawyer on a review website like Avvo?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer wanted more clients to rate him on Avvo, a site where clients give a lawyer one to five stars across several categories and may write a review, and proposed offering each client a $50 credit on their legal bill for submitting a rating, with the credit not contingent on the review's content, the scores, or whether the client checks the "recommend" box (¶¶ 1-3). The committee analyzed three provisions in turn.

On Rule 7.2(a), which bars giving anything of value to a person to recommend or obtain employment, the committee held the rule did not apply because the inquirer asked for a rating, not a recommendation: the client stays free to give a bad rating or decline to recommend, and the credit is not a reward for a recommendation "resulting in employment" (¶¶ 5-6). The committee cautioned that if the credit were made contingent on a positive review, high scores, or being retained by a new client, it would violate Rule 7.2(a), but those were not the facts (¶ 7).

On the advertising rules, the committee explained that a client's freely given review is not an "advertisement" under Rule 1.0(a) because it is not made "by or on behalf of" the lawyer (¶¶ 8-9). That changes if the lawyer coerces or compels a client to rate a pending matter (then it is "on behalf of" the lawyer and subject to Rule 7.1(e)(4)'s informed-consent requirement) or writes the review himself (then it is "by" the lawyer and subject to Rule 7.1(a)'s ban on false, deceptive, or misleading advertising) (¶ 10). A $50 credit that clients may freely accept or decline is an incentive, not coercion, so consent under Rule 7.1(e)(4) is not lacking (¶ 11). Finally, under Rule 8.4(c), a coerced rating or one written by the lawyer would involve deceit or misrepresentation by passing off the lawyer's words as the client's (¶ 12). The committee expressly declined to address whether the inquirer must disclose the inducement, whether Avvo ratings are "bona fide professional ratings," and whether the plan complies with the FTC's endorsement guides, calling the FTC question one of law beyond its jurisdiction (¶ 13).

In practice

Under the New York rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee permitted the bill credit on its specific facts and marked the lines that would change the answer. Rule 7.2(a) was not triggered because the payment was for a rating untethered to content or to any resulting retention; the committee said a credit conditioned on a positive review, high scores, or a new client being retained would violate it. The advertising rules turned on authorship and voluntariness: a client's freely given review is not the lawyer's advertisement, but a coerced rating or one the lawyer writes becomes an advertisement subject to Rules 7.1(a) and 7.1(e)(4) and also deceit under Rule 8.4(c). The committee left the disclosure, "bona fide professional rating," and FTC-compliance questions unaddressed.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer offer clients a discount or credit for leaving an online review?

A: Yes, under this opinion, if the credit is not contingent on the content of the rating, the client is not coerced into rating, and the client writes the review; on those facts Rule 7.2(a) is not triggered (¶¶ 6, 14).

Q: What would make paying for a rating improper?

A: Conditioning the credit on a positive review, on high scores, or on being retained by a new client would violate Rule 7.2(a) (¶ 7).

Q: Is a client's online review treated as lawyer advertising?

A: No, not when the client freely writes it, because it is not made "by or on behalf of" the lawyer. It becomes an advertisement if the lawyer coerces the rating or writes it himself (¶¶ 9-10).

Q: Can the lawyer write or edit the review himself?

A: No. A rating that purports to be the client's but was written by the lawyer is false, deceptive, or misleading under Rule 7.1(a) and involves deceit under Rule 8.4(c) (¶¶ 10, 12).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.2(a) (giving value to recommend or obtain employment), Rule 7.1(a), (d), and (e)(4) (advertising and testimonials), and Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.2, 7.1, and 8.4. The analysis turns on the Rule 1.0(a) definition of "advertisement" and on whether the client's rating is voluntary and authored by the client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 / NY RPC 7.2(a) (giving value to recommend or obtain employment)
• MR 7.1 / NY RPC 7.1(a), (d), (e)(4) (advertising; testimonials; informed consent for a pending matter)
• MR 8.4 / NY RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation)

Other authorities:

• 16 C.F.R. Part 255 (FTC Guides on endorsements and testimonials), noted as a question of law the committee did not decide

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 661 (1994): a fictional client testimonial is inherently false, deceptive, and misleading
• N.Y. State 873 (2011): offering a prize to join the lawyer's social network is permissible if not illegal, but the lawyer must be honest

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1213: Paying an online lawyer-matching service that recommends
• ABA Formal Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
• NY State Bar Op. 1276: Fake social media accounts offering legal services

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1052/