Can a Texas lawyer ask current and former clients to leave positive reviews and star ratings on Google or social media?

Plain-English summary

The opinion considers a lawyer who wants favorable star ratings and comments on a search engine's review feature, which the lawyer does not control, and who asks current and former clients to leave positive ratings and comments without paying or giving anything of value. The Committee limits its analysis to encouraging current and former clients (not vendors, employees, or friends and family), and does not address broader social-media implications.

The Committee notes that lawyer advertising and solicitation rules have long applied to lawyers' websites and social media, while encouraging client reviews on third-party sites is newer. Although nothing expressly prohibits requesting reviews, Rule 7.02(a) bars a lawyer from making or sponsoring communications about the lawyer's services that are false or misleading, and Comment 2 to Rule 7.02 makes clear the rule governs all communications about a lawyer's services. Rule 8.04(a)(3) separately bars conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The Committee draws on its Opinion 662 (a lawyer may post a proportional, restrained response to a negative review without revealing confidential information) and on out-of-state opinions from Connecticut and the District of Columbia, which permit seeking reviews but bar false or misleading content and giving value for reviews.

The Committee concludes a Texas lawyer may ask current and former clients to post favorable ratings and reviews, but must not encourage anyone to make false or misleading statements or statements with no factual basis. It does not decide whether a lawyer has an affirmative duty to monitor review sites, but holds that if a lawyer becomes aware that a client posted a favorable statement that is false, misleading, or unfounded, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to see it corrected or removed to avoid violating Rules 7.02(a) and 8.04(a)(3). If the lawyer controls the platform, the lawyer must have the author correct it or remove it; if not, the lawyer should address it with the author or the platform's administrator, or consider a curative comment, while taking care not to breach the Rule 1.05 duty to protect client confidential information.

In practice

Under this opinion, and under the Texas rules as they stood at the time, a lawyer may encourage current and former clients to post favorable online reviews and star ratings, but may not encourage anyone to make statements that are false, misleading, or unfounded, under Rule 7.02(a) and Rule 8.04(a)(3). The opinion holds that if the lawyer becomes aware a client's favorable review is false, misleading, or unfounded, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to have it corrected or removed: by having the author correct or remove it where the lawyer controls the platform, or by addressing it with the author or administrator or posting a curative comment where the lawyer does not, all while protecting client confidential information under Rule 1.05. The opinion does not decide whether a lawyer has an affirmative duty to monitor review sites.

Common questions

Q: Can I ask my clients to leave me a good review on Google?

A: Per Opinion 685, yes. The Committee concludes the rules do not prohibit a lawyer from encouraging current and former clients to post positive reviews or star ratings, provided the lawyer does not encourage them to make false, misleading, or unfounded statements.

Q: Can I pay a client or give a discount for a review?

A: The opinion's facts assume the lawyer does not pay or provide anything of value, and it cites with approval out-of-state opinions holding that a lawyer must not give a client something of value in exchange for submitting a review.

Q: What if a client's glowing review says something untrue?

A: The Committee says that if a lawyer becomes aware a client posted a favorable statement that is false, misleading, or unfounded, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to have it corrected or removed, to avoid violating Rules 7.02(a) and 8.04(a)(3).

Q: Do I have to monitor review sites for false reviews?

A: The Committee expressly does not decide whether a lawyer has an affirmative duty to monitor review sites. Its correction obligation is triggered when the lawyer becomes aware of a false, misleading, or unfounded favorable statement.

Q: Can I respond to or fix a false review myself?

A: The opinion says if the lawyer controls the platform, the lawyer must encourage the author to correct it or remove it; if not, the lawyer should address it with the author or administrator or consider a curative comment, while taking care under Rule 1.05 not to reveal client confidential information.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.02(a) (a lawyer shall not make or sponsor false or misleading communications about the lawyer's services; ABA Model Rule 7.1) with Comment 2, and Rule 8.04(a)(3) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; ABA Model Rule 8.4(c)). It also applies the Rule 1.05 confidentiality duty to any curative response, and relies on the Committee's Opinion 662 and on out-of-state opinions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation)
• Texas Disciplinary Rules 7.02(a), 8.04(a)(3), 1.05

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 662 (August 2016): a lawyer may post a proportional, restrained response to a negative review without revealing confidential information
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 2012-03 (2012): lawyers may seek client reviews but not false or misleading ones, and may not give value for a review
• District of Columbia Bar Ethics Opinion 370 (November 2016): information on a lawyer's social media must be truthful and not misleading; no affirmative duty to monitor sites the lawyer does not control

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 662: Responding to a Former Client's Negative Online Review
• TX Ethics Op. 661: Competitor's Name as a Search-Engine Keyword Ad
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-685/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_685.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, may lawyers encourage current and former clients to post positive reviews or comments and favorable "star" ratings of the lawyer through a search engine's or social media platform's review feature?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

An online search engine includes a feature that allows users to post reviews of business organizations and professionals, such as law firms and lawyers. The lawyer has no control over the search engine, which allows users to post a "star" rating of the lawyer and make comments that can be seen by other users of the search engine. An aggregate star rating of the lawyer appears on the search engine when a user searches the name of the lawyer. Star ratings and comments left by individual users can also be seen by users of the search engine.

The lawyer desires a favorable star rating on the search engine and user comments that cast the lawyer in a positive light. To achieve this, the lawyer asks current and former clients to leave positive comments and favorable star ratings. The lawyer does not pay or provide anything of value in exchange for these favorable reviews.

DISCUSSION

This opinion addresses whether lawyers may encourage current and former clients to leave positive reviews or star ratings online. This opinion does not address the broader implications of social media on the practice of law, nor does it address whether vendors, employees, or the lawyer's friends and family may be encouraged to post reviews or favorable star ratings.

Lawyers, their websites, and their social media sites have long been subject to lawyer advertising and solicitation rules. See State Bar of Texas Advertising Review Committee Interpretive Comment 17 (March 1996, rev. May 2003, rev. 2010) (applying advertising rules "to information disseminated digitally via the Internet"). The practice of encouraging online reviews from clients on third-party websites is a newer development.

Although the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not expressly prohibit a lawyer from requesting search engine or social media reviews, a lawyer has a duty not to make or sponsor any communications that are "false or misleading." Rule 7.02(a). Comment 2 to Rule 7.02 states that the Rule "governs all communications about a lawyer's services, including advertisements regulated by Rule 7.04 and solicitation communications regulated by Rules 7.03 and 7.05." Comment 2 further notes: "Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer's services, statements about them must be truthful and nondeceptive." Furthermore, Rule 8.04(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

This Committee has not previously addressed whether a lawyer may encourage current and former clients to post positive reviews. The Committee has examined a lawyer's publishing a response to a former client's negative review on the internet, finding that a lawyer "may post a proportional and restrained response that does not reveal any confidential information or otherwise violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct." Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 662 (August 2016).

While this Committee has not previously addressed whether a lawyer may encourage current and former clients to post positive reviews, ethics committees in other jurisdictions have. For example, Connecticut lawyers may seek positive reviews from clients and direct them to websites. However, they cannot suggest that clients submit reviews that "contain any information that would be 'false or misleading'" and lawyers must not give something of value to the client in exchange for submitting a review. Connecticut Informal Opinion 2012-03 (2012). The District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee has opined that information contained on a lawyer's social media pages must be truthful and not misleading, especially when the lawyer controls the medium, such as a firm website or a social media profile. District of Columbia Bar Ethics Opinion 370 (Nov. 2016). The opinion further concluded that a lawyer has no affirmative duty to monitor sites where the attorney does not have editorial control over the postings but noted that, "under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for the attorney to request that the poster remove the content, to request that the social networking site remove the content, or for the attorney to post a curative response." Id.

Similarly, the Committee concludes that, under the Rules, a Texas lawyer may ask current and former clients to post favorable star ratings and online reviews about the lawyer. The lawyer must not, however, encourage anyone to make false or misleading statements or statements that the person has no factual basis for making.

The Committee does not decide the issue of whether a lawyer has an affirmative duty to monitor websites, social media platforms, or similar sites for false, misleading, or unfounded statements. But, if a lawyer becomes aware that a client made a favorable false or misleading statement or a statement that the client has no factual basis for making, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to see that such statements are corrected or removed in order to avoid violating Rules 7.02(a) and 8.04(a)(3). If the lawyer controls the content of the website or platform where the false, misleading, or unfounded statement resides, the lawyer has an affirmative obligation either to encourage the author to correct the false, misleading, or unfounded statements or to remove the statements entirely. If the lawyer does not control the website or platform and cannot remove the false, misleading, or unfounded statements, the lawyer should address the matter with the author of the review or consider addressing the concern with the administrator of that platform to see if the review can be removed or revised. Alternatively, the lawyer should consider making a curative comment on the website or social media platform. If the lawyer communicates with the platform's administrator or makes a curative statement, the lawyer must be careful not to breach the lawyer's duty under Rule 1.05 to maintain the confidentiality of client information.

See Opinion 662.

CONCLUSION

The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit a lawyer from encouraging current and former clients to leave positive reviews or ratings online, provided that the lawyer does not encourage the clients to make statements that are false, misleading, or unfounded. If a lawyer becomes aware that a client posted a favorable review that is false, misleading, or unfounded, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to see that the statement is corrected or removed.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 685 (2020)