Can an Oregon lawyer respond publicly to a former client's negative online review?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a lawyer who wants to respond to a former client's harsh online reviews that the lawyer believes are false and defamatory. The conclusion is "see discussion": the analysis turns on Oregon RPC 1.6.

The opinion concludes that "information relating to the representation of a client" under Oregon RPC 1.0(f) is read broadly and includes even the client's name or information in the public record, and that the protection survives the end of the representation. Relying on In re Conry, the opinion concludes that responding to an online review can reveal embarrassing or detrimental information even when the underlying facts are already public, because gathering and presenting the information in a response makes it easier for the public to find and can itself signal that the information is damaging. The opinion concludes that summarizing, reframing, confirming, or reposting such information risks violating RPC 1.6, and that deleting the post later does not cure the disclosure, since the information was already revealed.

On the self-defense exception in Oregon RPC 1.6(b)(4), the opinion concludes it applies "sparingly, if at all" to online reviews: drawing on ABA Formal Opinion 496 and Oregon disciplinary decisions, it concludes a negative review is generally not a "controversy" between lawyer and client, and a public response is generally not reasonably necessary to establish a claim or defense. A formal proceeding (a malpractice claim, bar complaint, fee dispute, or demand letter) is more likely to qualify, and the lawyer may seek judicial review of whether the exception applies.

The opinion concludes the lawyer is not without remedy: a lawyer may ask the poster to make contact offline, direct readers to positive reviews, truthfully state that the poster was not a client (but may not falsely deny representing the client), make generic truthful statements about the practice, note publicly that ethics rules bar a response, seek the client's informed consent to respond, or pursue a defamation claim where disclosure is reasonably necessary to a nonfrivolous claim.

In practice

Under this opinion, an Oregon lawyer answering a negative online review stays within the rules only if the response does not reveal information relating to the representation, which the opinion reads broadly enough to include confirming public-record facts about the client. The opinion treats the self-defense exception as essentially unavailable for an informal online review and points the lawyer toward generic responses, a request to take the conversation offline, an accurate "not a client" statement, client consent, or a formal legal claim.

The opinion makes the embarrassment-or-detriment inquiry both objective and subjective, and warns that even confirming a client had a lawyer can be embarrassing in some practice areas.

Common questions

Q: Can an Oregon lawyer reply to a bad online review by explaining what really happened?

A: Generally no. The opinion concludes a response that reveals information relating to the representation violates RPC 1.6, even if the lawyer believes the review is false, unless an exception applies.

Q: If the information is already public, can the lawyer repeat it in a response?

A: No. Relying on In re Conry, the opinion concludes that re-disclosing public-record information in a review response can still be an embarrassing or detrimental disclosure, because it makes the information easier to find and signals that it is damaging.

Q: Does the self-defense exception let a lawyer answer an online review?

A: Rarely. The opinion concludes the RPC 1.6(b)(4) self-defense exception applies sparingly if at all to online reviews, because a negative review is generally not a "controversy" and a public response is generally not reasonably necessary.

Q: What can an Oregon lawyer do about a negative review?

A: The opinion concludes the lawyer may ask the poster to make contact offline, point readers to positive reviews, truthfully say the poster was not a client, make generic statements, note that ethics rules bar a response, seek the client's consent, or bring a defamation claim where disclosure is reasonably necessary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), its RPC 1.0(f) definition of information relating to the representation, and the RPC 1.6(b)(4) self-defense exception, with RPC 8.4 barring a false denial of representation. These track Model Rules 1.6 and 8.4. The analysis centers on In re Conry and ABA Formal Opinion 496.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality; self-defense exception)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(f) (information relating to the representation)
• Oregon RPC 8.4 / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct; false statements)

Cases:

• In re Conry, 368 Or. 349, 491 P.3d 42 (2021), disclosing client information in online review responses
• In re Heinzelman, 33 DB Rptr 6 (2019), false "not a client" statement to remove reviews

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 496 (2021): responding to online criticism
• ABA Formal Op. 480 (2018): confidentiality in public commentary
• OSB Formal Op. 2005-164: online communication treated as written communication

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
• OSB Ethics Op. 2024-204: Use of Client Information for Lawyer's Benefit
• ABA Formal Op. 480: Confidentiality in Blogging and Public Commentary

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2022-201.pdf