eDiscovery Daily Blog
California Has an Opinion about Attorney Blogging Too – eDiscovery Trends
Last week, we reported on an updated proposed opinion in California that required that attorneys in that state better be sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled, or decline representation in cases where eDiscovery is required (after reporting on the original proposed opinion back in April). Now, the California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) has turned its attention to another relatable topic for me – blogging (by attorneys, of course).
COPRAC has released Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 12 0006, which considers: Under what circumstances is “blogging” by an attorney subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and related provisions of the State Bar Act regulating attorney advertising? At its Dec. 5, 2014 meeting, COPRAC tentatively approved Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 12 0006 for a 90 day public comment distribution, due to expire on March 23rd, 2015 at 5pm PST.
The opinion digest states:
1. Blogging by an attorney is subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising if the blog expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment directly through words of invitation or offer to provide legal services, or implicitly through its description of the type and character of legal services offered by the attorney, detailed descriptions of case results, or both.
2. A blog that is a part of an attorney’s or law firm’s professional website will be subject to the rules regulating attorney advertising to the same extent as the website of which it is a part.
3. A stand-alone blog by an attorney that does not relate to the practice of law or otherwise express the attorney’s availability for professional employment will not become subject to the rules regulating attorney advertising simply because the blog contains a link to the attorney or law firm’s professional website.
The opinion also includes a statement of facts analyzing four examples of attorney blogs and which ones are subject to Rule 1-400 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. For more information and where to direct comments, click here.
So, what do you think? Should other states have similar rules about attorney blogging? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.