Real estate lawyers are involved in two disciplinary cases
Two disciplinary cases* were published by the South Carolina Supreme Court on April 19 concerning lawyers involved in multi-state mortgage modification practices. Stay tuned for a blog on the mortgage modification issues because Palmetto State dirt lawyers should steer clear of the unauthorized practice of law and other prickly issues these practices may trigger.
But ostensibly even more pressing, the Court provided ample guidance on lawyer marketing in the context of social media. Using websites and social media in marketing effort is common in 2017 for most lawyers.
The lawyers in these cases failed to adequately monitor the individuals (staff members and third parties) who handled these marketing efforts for their practices. Failure to properly supervise these effort resulted in running afoul of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.
Dirt lawyers, here are some practices you should avoid taking in your marketing efforts:
- You should not “cut and paste” from other lawyers’ websites without scrutinizing the materials.
- If you are a sole practitioner, your website and other marketing materials should not indicate your practice includes “attorneys” or “lawyers”.
- You should not exaggerate your years of experience.
- You should not use the word “expert” except in those areas where you are certified as a specialist by the Supreme Court.
- You should not advertise practice areas where you have no experience in those areas and where you do not intend to take cases in those areas.
- You should not congratulate clients on their closings without obtaining the clients’ permission to post their names and other information about their legal matters on social media. I see (and “like”) lots of these congratulatory messages on Facebook, and these messages are not objectionable if the lawyer has obtained the clients’ consent.
- Your marketing materials should not refer to your legal services as “best”.
- You should not advertise special discounted rates for legal services without disclosing whether or not these rates include anticipated costs.
- You should not compare your services to other attorneys in ways that cannot be factually substantiated.
- You should not allow third party vendors to identify themselves as employees of your firm when communicating with prospective clients.
Not many of us are “experts” in the area of attorney advertising, but I strongly recommend that you pay close attention to the Rules in all aspects of website development and social media use. Unlike most areas of the law, the Rules of Professional Responsibility that control advertising appear to be somewhat “black and white”. And failure to follow these Rules will anger your fellow lawyers and will likely to land you in the Advance Sheets. Be careful out there!
* In the Matter of Bacon, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27710, April 19, 2017; In the Matter of Emery, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27712, April 19, 2017.
One thought on “SC Supreme Court publishes new commentary on social media”