- •Ethical Considerations of Legal Netvertising
- •I. Introduction
- •II. Constitutional Basis for the Regulation of Legal Advertising a. Historical regulation of legal advertising
- •B. What constitutes advertising
- •III. Potential Legal and Ethical Issues for Lawyers on the Net
- •A. Electronic Initiation of Attorney Client Relationship
- •1. Disclaimers
- •C. Unauthorized Practice of Law
- •IV. Current Efforts Toward Revisions a. California Revisions.
- •B. Iowa Revisions
- •C. Reasons Further Revision is Required
- •V. Proposed Revisions to Georgia Law and Rules a. Practicing on the Net.
- •B. Advertising on the Net
- •C. Misleading Material
- •D. Direct Solicitation
- •E. Records
- •VI. Conclusion
VI. Conclusion
The Internet is a new a complicated medium which creates an entirely new way to communicate and to conduct business. Although there are many issues pertaining to Netvertising that have not been addressed, bar associations and lawyers alike are in need of guidance. Rapid steps should be taken in order to develop guidelines and rules so that both lawyers and laypeople are protected.
___________________________
[1] Standard 6(a) of Georgia Code of Ethical Conduct.
[2] O.C.G.A. § 10-1-427 (1994).
[3] Ann Woolner, Ga. Bar Getting Ammo to Get Touch on Ads, Fulton County Daily Report, June 26, 1995, at 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar v. Humphrey. 355 N.W.2D 565, 567 (1985), vacated by 472 U.S. 1004 , on remand, 377 N.W.2d 643, appeal dismissed by 475 U.S. 1114, rehearing denied by 476 U.S. 1165.
[6] Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
[7] Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691 (1977).
[8] Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm. on Human Relations et al., 413 U.S. 376, 93 S.Ct. 24453 (1973).
[9] Friedmand v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 887 (1979).
[10] Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Comm'n of NY, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343 (1980).
[11] Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691 (1977)..
[12] In re R.M.J. 455 U.S. 191, 199-202 (1982).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 477 (1978).
[16] Id.
[17] 115 S.Ct. 2371 (1995). "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/supct.june.1995.html" or "ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/94-226.ZO.filt"
[18] Florida Bar v. Went For It, 115 S.Ct. 2371 (1995)
[19] Florida Rule 4-7.4(b)(1).
[20] Florida Bar v. Went For It, 115 S.Ct. 2371 (1995).
[21] Peel v. Attorney Reg. & Disciplinary Comm'n, 496 U.S. 91, 97 (1990).
[22] T.K. Read, Pushing the Advertising Envelope: Building Bill Boards in the Sky along the Information Superhighways, Western State College of Law Journal (To be published Fall 1995)
[23] Kentucky Bar Assoc. v. Gangwish, 618 S.W.2d 176 (1981)
[24] T.K. Read, Pushing the Advertising Envelope: Building Bill Boards in the Sky along the Information Superhighways, Western State College of Law Journal (To be published Fall 1995).
[25] Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626,639, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 2274-75 (1985).
[26] T.K. Read, Pushing the Advertising Envelope: Building Bill Boards in the Sky along the Information Superhighways, Western State College of Law Journal (To be published Fall 1995)
[27] Texans Against Censorship, Inc. v. State Bar of Texas, 888 F.Supp. 1328 (E.D. Tx 1995).
[28], Id., at 1343.
[29] Id.
[30] Id., at 1344.
[31] Id.
[32] Riley v. Nat'l Fed. of the Blind of North Carolina, 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988).
[33] Texans Against Censorship, Inc. v. State Bar of Texas, at 1344-47.
[34] Id.
[35] http://www.kuesterlaw.com/
[36] Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Cannon #2, DR 2-101(B)(4).
[37] In re Schwartz, 195 App.Div. 194, 186 NYS 535 (1921).
[38] The Florida Bar v. Kaiser, 397 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1981)
[39] T.K. Read, Pushing the Advertising Envelope: Building Bill Boards in the Sky along the Information Superhighways, Western State College of Law Journal (To be published Fall 1995)
[40] 1994 CA Legis. 711.
[41] Id.
[42] CA Bus & Prof. s 6158, (1994).
[43] Id.
[44] Id. at § 6158.1(a).
[45] Id. at § 6158.1(b).
[46] Id. at § 6158.1(c).
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id. at § 6158.3
[50] Id. at § 6158.2
[51] Id. at § 6158.4(a).
[52] Id.
[53] Id. at § 6158.4(b)(1).
[54] Id. at § 6158.4(e).
[55] Id. at § 6158.4(h).
[56] Id. at § 6158.4(k).
[57] See Iowa Ct. R. DR-201.
[58] See Id. at 201(B).
[59] Id. at 201(B)(5).
[60] Id.
[61] Id. at 201(A).
[62] 355 N.W.2D 565, vacated by 472 U.S. 1004 , on remand, 377 N.W.2d 643, appeal dismissed by 475 U.S. 1114 , , rehearing denied by 476 U.S. 1165.
[63] Id. at 566-67.
[64] Id. at 568.
[65] Id. at 569.
[66] Id. at 570.
[67] Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar v. Humphrey377 N.W.2d 643, 644 appeal dismissed by 475 U.S. 1114 , , rehearing denied by 476 U.S. 1165
[68] Id. at 645.
[69] Id.
[70] See Review of Selected 1994 California Legislation, 26 Pac. L.J. 281 (1994).
[71] Iowa Ct. R. DR-201(B)(5).
[72] O.C.G.A. § 15-19-51(a).
[73] O.C.G.A. § 10-1-427.
[74] Standard 6(c), State Bar of Georgia Handbook, 1994-1995.