Can a lawyer answer legal questions in chat rooms or on social media and offer to take the person as a client?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether he could visit real-time interactive internet or social media sites where people post legal questions, answer those questions, and advise people of his availability. The committee's example: if someone in a chat room asks how long they have to sue for malpractice, may the lawyer say "the statute of limitations in New York is three years," and may he add "call me for a free evaluation"? (paragraphs 1 through 3).

The committee framed the analysis with two definitions. An "advertisement" (Rule 1.0(a)) is a communication whose primary purpose is the retention of the lawyer; "solicitation" (Rule 7.3(b)) is an advertisement directed at a specific recipient with a significant motive of pecuniary gain, but it excludes a proposal prepared in response to a specific request from a prospective client. Rule 7.3(a)(1) bars solicitation by in-person, telephone, or real-time or interactive computer-accessed communication; under Comment [9], chat rooms and instant messaging are real-time and interactive (ordinary email and websites are not) (paragraphs 4 through 11).

On the first question, the committee held a lawyer may answer general legal questions online, analogizing to writing for publication under Rule 7.1(r): the lawyer must not give individual advice and should caution readers not to solve their own problems from the general information. Educational participation is ordinarily not advertising, so not solicitation, unless participants are expressly encouraged to hire the lawyer (paragraphs 12, 13).

On the second question, the committee held the lawyer may not offer his services in the chat room itself. A posted legal question is not a "specific request" to retain the lawyer, so encouraging retention in response violates Rule 7.3(a)(1), and any offer posted to the room would be a real-time solicitation to everyone who did not request it. But Rule 7.1(q) allows accepting employment that results from educating the public. If a person initiates a specific request to be represented, the lawyer may respond privately: if the person gives contact information, reply only to that person; if not, the lawyer should first ask the person to contact him off the site (for example, "for an individual consultation, visit my website"), then deliver a proposal in response to the off-site request. The lawyer may not post the proposal on the site. The committee declined to decide questions of law, including whether private responses might implicate Judiciary Law section 479 or its constitutionality after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (paragraphs 14 through 20).

In practice

The opinion holds that, under New York Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may participate in online forums to answer general legal questions but must stay on the educational side of the advertising line. The committee made two operative distinctions: general answers that do not give individual advice are permitted (Rule 7.1(r)), while real-time solicitation in chat rooms and similar interactive forums is prohibited (Rule 7.3(a)(1)). When a person specifically requests representation, the committee mapped a path: reply privately to that person off the site, and if no contact information is given, invite the person to reach the lawyer off-site before sending any proposal, since a posted offer would solicit everyone in the room. The committee also cautioned (footnote 1) that giving individual advice in a public forum risks forming an attorney-client relationship without a conflict check and revealing privileged advice publicly.

Common questions

Q: Can I answer legal questions in a chat room or on social media?

A: Yes, general answers. The committee held this is analogous to writing for publication under Rule 7.1(r); the lawyer must not give individual advice and should caution people not to act on the general information (paragraph 12).

Q: Can I tell the person in the chat room to hire me or call for a free evaluation?

A: No. A posted question is not a specific request to retain you, so encouraging retention in the room is prohibited real-time solicitation under Rule 7.3(a)(1), and an offer posted there would solicit everyone who did not ask for it (paragraphs 15, 19).

Q: What if someone in the forum specifically asks me to represent them?

A: Then your private response is not improper solicitation. If they give contact information, reply only to that person; if not, ask them to contact you off the site first, then send a proposal in response to that request (paragraphs 17, 18).

Q: Are there risks to giving individual advice in a public forum?

A: Yes. The committee noted that giving individual advice in a public chat room might form an attorney-client relationship without the conflict check Rule 1.10(e) requires and could reveal privileged advice publicly in violation of Rule 1.6(a) (footnote 1).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.1 (advertising, including Rule 7.1(q) on employment from public-education activities and Rule 7.1(r) on writing for publication) and Rule 7.3 (solicitation, including the Rule 7.3(a)(1) bar on real-time or interactive computer-accessed solicitation and the Rule 7.3(b) "specific request" exclusion), together with the definitions of "advertisement" (Rule 1.0(a)) and "computer-accessed communication" (Rule 1.0(c)), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / NY Rule 7.1(a), (q), (r): advertising content; employment from public education; writing for publication
• MR 7.3 / NY Rule 7.3(a), (b): solicitation; bar on real-time/interactive computer-accessed solicitation; specific-request exclusion
• NY Rule 1.0(a): definition of "advertisement"
• NY Rule 1.0(c): definition of "computer-accessed communication"

Statutes:

• N.Y. Judiciary Law section 479 (solicitation by attorneys; committee declined to opine as a question of law)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), commercial-speech limits on advertising restrictions (cited; constitutionality not decided)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 830 (2009): a lawyer may offer to speak on legal topics but must meet advertising/solicitation rules if expressly encouraging retention

See also

• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 897: Marketing Legal Services via a "Deal of the Day" Site
• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 908: Advertising in an Internet Directory
• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 918: Solicitation and Public Education

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-899/