Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Did a Vermont lawyer's public website require an advertising label, and could disclaimers prevent client duties?

Short answer Opinion 2000-04 treated the public site as advertising subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.2, but said ordinary posted pages did not require a Rule 7.3 advertising label. Disclaimers could clarify expectations but would not necessarily prevent a lawyer-client relationship or confidentiality duties arising from individual exchanges.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2000
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer's public website described the lawyer's services, offered general answers to legal questions, invited emailed inquiries, and included disclaimers denying a client relationship or confidentiality. The committee held that the site advertised legal services and was subject to Rule 7.1's accuracy limits and Rule 7.2's advertising and recordkeeping provisions.

The committee distinguished a public page that visitors choose to read from lawyer-initiated contact with identified people known to need help in a particular matter. It said the ordinary pages and generic question answers did not need a Rule 7.3 “Advertising Material” label, while directed emails or other targeted contacts could trigger additional requirements.

The committee said clear disclosures could explain the site's limits, but could not by themselves determine whether a lawyer-client relationship formed. Personalized email responses and information submitted before formal engagement could raise confidentiality and conflict questions. The committee did not decide how other jurisdictions' advertising rules would apply to the site.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, shortly after Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Was the public website advertising under Vermont's rules?

A: Yes. The committee applied Rules 7.1 and 7.2, including the then-stated accuracy and recordkeeping duties.

Q: Did every page need the words 'Advertising Material'?

A: No. The committee said Rule 7.3(c) did not require that label for a public site that was not directed to identified people known to need legal services in a particular matter.

Q: Could a disclaimer always prevent a lawyer-client relationship?

A: No. The committee said the result depended on the nature and extent of individual interaction, not disclaimers alone.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Vermont Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 to the website and discussed Rule 1.6 on confidentiality. It quoted ABA Formal Opinion 358's account of Model Rule 1.6 concerning would-be clients.

Citations and references

Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 1.6.

Model Rules cited:

  • Model Rule 1.6.

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinion 97-5; Illinois State Bar Association Opinion 96-10; Tennessee Ethics Opinion 95-A-570; ABA Formal Opinion 358.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2000. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace