Does a lawyer's YouTube channel offering general legal information count as attorney advertising in New York?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2023. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquirer, an attorney with a New York office, wants to create a YouTube channel about being a lawyer in the United States, work-life balance, tips for law students, and general legal information for the public. She would use her full name and hopes to earn income through sponsorships and affiliate links. She asks whether she may run a revenue-producing channel linked to her professional name.
The opinion starts from the principle that writing articles, giving lectures, and blogging on legal topics are permitted and encouraged. The constraint is Rule 7.1, which applies only if the content is "advertising." Rule 1.0(a) defines an "advertisement" as a communication about the lawyer's services whose primary purpose is the retention of the lawyer; all four elements must be met. Applying the content/intent/audience test from N.Y. State 848, the opinion concludes that general legal information ("being a lawyer in the U.S.," "work-life balance") is not advertising, while content that is news about the lawyer and her practice for the primary purpose of retention would be.
The opinion adds three points. Linking the lawyer's name and contact information to the channel does not, by itself, turn non-advertising content into advertising, relying on the branding distinction in Comment [8] to Rule 7.1. Earning income through sponsorship or affiliate links is not per se improper, though making referrals for compensation could implicate other rules such as Rule 1.5(g), which the opinion did not address. And if the channel includes interactive comment features, the lawyer must not give individual legal advice or disclose confidential information in response to viewers (citing N.Y. State 899). If the channel is linked to firm advertising, the opinion notes some lawyers conservatively label educational material under Rule 7.1(f).
In practice
Under this opinion, conduct that involves posting general legal-information videos under the lawyer's own name, including earning sponsorship or affiliate income, is permitted and is not advertising. Per the opinion, videos whose primary purpose is the lawyer's retention are advertising governed by Rule 7.1, and simply linking the lawyer's name and contact information to the channel does not convert otherwise-permitted content into advertising.
Common questions
Q: Is a lawyer's educational YouTube channel attorney advertising?
A: Per the opinion, not necessarily. Applying the content/intent/audience test from N.Y. State 848, general legal information is not advertising, but content primarily about the lawyer's practice aimed at retention is.
Q: Can a lawyer earn money from the channel through sponsorships or affiliate links?
A: Per the opinion, yes. There is nothing per se improper about a lawyer running a separate income-generating business; the opinion notes that referral arrangements could implicate other rules such as Rule 1.5(g), which it did not address.
Q: Does putting the lawyer's name and contact information on the channel make it advertising?
A: Per the opinion, no, not by itself. Citing Comment [8] to Rule 7.1, the opinion treats name-and-contact branding as general awareness rather than advertising when the content is not otherwise advertising.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rule 1.0(a) (the definition of "advertisement") and Rule 7.1 (advertising), including the labeling provision Rule 7.1(f). These correspond to ABA Model Rule 7.1.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.0(a), 7.1, 7.1(f)
- ABA Model Rule 7.1 (analogue)
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 848 (2010): content, intent, and audience test for whether a newsletter is advertising
- N.Y. State 899 (2011): general answers only, no individual advice, on interactive sites
- N.Y. State 1039 (2014): conservative labeling of educational material
See also
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1262: Lawyer Recognition on a Nonprofit Site
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1276: Fake Social Media Accounts Offering Legal Services
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1286: Asking Former Clients for Google Reviews
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1251/
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2023 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.