Ethics Opinions Related to Technology

State Bar of California Ethics Opinions

• CAL 2003-164: Forming an Attorney-Client Relationship on a Radio Call-In Show or Similar Forum
• CAL 2004-166: Communicating with Mass Disaster Victims via Internet Chat Room
• CAL 2005-168: Website for Visitors to Submit Legal Questions and Confidentiality
• CAL 2007-172: Accepting Credit Card Payments from a Client 
• CAL 2007-174: Electronic Client Files
• CAL 2010-179: Confidentiality and Technology
• CAL 2012-184: Virtual Law Office
• CAL 2012-186: Social Networking
• CAL 2013-188: Confidential Information and Unsolicited Email Correspondence
• CAL 2015-193: ESI and Discovery Request
• CAL 2016-196: Attorney Blogging

Los Angeles County Bar Ethics Opinions

• LA 514: Ethical Issues Involving Lawyer and Judicial Participation in Listserv Communications (August 2005)
• LA 525: Ethical Duties of Lawyers in Connection with Adverse Comments Published by a Former Client

Orange County Bar Ethics Opinions

• OCBA 2005-01: File Transfer and Work Product Rules Applicable to Electronic Files

San Diego County Bar Ethics Opinions

• SD 2006-1: Electronic communication technology revolution via computer networks and new opportunities for public access to legal services and for lawyers and law firms
• SD 2011-2: Has an attorney violated his ethical obligations by making an ex parte “friend” request to a represented party?
• SD 2012-1: What conditions, consistent with the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act, must an attorney meet to represent a client in litigation when that client regularly transmits and stores information digitally, including by email?

San Francisco County Bar Ethics Opinions

• SF 2014-1: May an attorney respond to a negative online review by a former client alleging incompetence but not disclosing any confidential information where the former client's matter has concluded? If so, may the attorney reveal confidential information in providing such a response? Does the analysis change if the former client's matter has not concluded?

Other Ethics Committee and Other Advisory Opinions

• ABA Formal Opinion 11-459: Duty to Protect the Confidentiality of E-mail Communications with One's Client
• ABA Formal Opinion 11-460: Duty when Lawyer Receives Copies of a Third Party's Email Communications with Counsel
• ABA Formal Opinion 477R: Securing Communication of Protect Client Information
• ABA Formal Opinion 462: Judge's Use of Electronic Social Networking Media
• ABA Formal Opinion 465: Lawyers' Use of Deal-of-the-Day Marketing Programs
• ABA Formal Opinion 466: Lawyer Reviewing Jurors' Internet Presence
• ABA Formal Opinion 480: Confidentiality Obligations for Lawyer Blogging and Other Public Commentary
• ABA Formal Opinion 483: Lawyers’ Obligations After an Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack
• ABA Formal Opinion 498: Virtual Practice
• Alaska Bar Association 2016-1: May a Lawyer Surreptitiously Track Emails and Other Documents Sent to Opposing Counsel
• California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 66: Judges' Participation in Online Social Networking
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 2013-07: Cloud Computing
• DC Bar Ethics Opinion 362 (2012): Nonlawyer Ownership of Discovery Service Vendors
• Delaware Ethics Opinion 2008-2: Use of the designation "Super Lawyer" or "Best Lawyer" on a lawyer's website or in an email solicitation
• Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 00-4 (2000): Legal Services over the Internet
• Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 12-3 (2013): Cloud Computing
• Illinois State Bar Opinion 15-05 (2015): A law firm’s website may contain links to other websites of other businesses and/or organizations.
• Maine Ethics Opinion 207: The Ethics of Cloud Computing and Storage
• Massachusetts Ethics Opinion 12-03 (2012): Google docs and cloud computing
• Michigan Ethics Opinion RI-341 (2007): Lawyer named “Super Lawyer” may advertise it
• Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 17-03: Digital Currencies such as Bitcoin as Payment
• Nevada State Bar Formal Opinion No. 32: Attorney-Client Relationship Following the Advent of the Internet and Electronic Means of Communication
• New Hampshire Ethics Opinion 2012-13/4: The Use of Cloud Computing in the Practice of Law
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2001-1: Obligations of Law Firm Receiving Unsolicited E-Mail Communications from Prospective Client
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2010-2: Obtaining Evidence From Social Networking Websites
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2011-2: Third-Party Litigation Financing
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2012-2: Jury Research and Social Media
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2014-2: Use of Virtual Law Office by New York Attorneys
• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2015-3: Lawyers Who Fall Victim to Internet Scams
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 842 (2010): Using an outside online storage provider to store client confidential information
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 877 (2011): Permissible material on a firm’s website.
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 888 (2011): Links on a lawyer's web site to other businesses
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 915 (2012): Assuming relevant advertising rules are adhered to, a law firm's website may link to the website of a nonlegal entity, and vice versa.
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 972 (2013): Listing in Social Media
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1025 (2014): Virtual law office; Advertising principal law office address
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1032 (2014): Responding to a former client's critical commentary on a website
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1062 (2015): Financing a law practice; crowdfunding websites
• New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1101 (2016): Advertising; dual practice; link from law firm's website to real estate brokerage information
• North Carolina State Bar 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 14: Lawyer may advertise the lawyer's inclusion in Super Lawyers and other similar publications subject to certain conditions.
• Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline Opinion 2013-2: Direct Contact with Prospective Clients: Text Messages
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2005-107: Unauthorized Practice of Law: Producing General Legal Information Tapes
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2005-164: Communicating with Represented Persons: Contact Through Web Sites and the Internet
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2007-180: Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2011-187: Competency: Disclosure of Metadata
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2011-188: Information Relating to the Representation of a Client: Third-Party Electronic Storage of Client Materials
• Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2013-189: Accessing Information about Third Parties Through a Social Networking Website
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-200: Ethical Obligations on Maintaining a Virtual Office for the Practice of Law in Pennsylvania
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2011-200: Ethical Obligations for Attorneys Using Cloud Computing / Software as a Service while Fulfilling the Duties of Confidentiality and Preservation of Client Property
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2014-200: Lawyer's Response to Client's Negative Online Review
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2014-300: Ethical Obligations for Attorneys Using Social Media
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2020-300: Ethical Obligations for Lawyers Working Remotely
• Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee Opinion 2015-6: Attorney’s Fees and Crowdfunding
• South Carolina Ethics Opinion 09-10 (2010): May a South Carolina lawyer claim his or her Company X website listing, including peer endorsements, client ratings, and Company X ratings?  May a lawyer invite peers and clients to post comments and/or rate the lawyer?
• Texas Ethics Opinion 2015-02 (2015): Social Media and Attorneys
• Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1872 (2013): Virtual Law Office and Use of Executive Office Suites
• Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1873 (2014): Continued Use of Former Firm Name in URL After Firm Name has Changed
• Washington State Bar Ethics Opinion 2008 (2003): Inclusion of the logo for Best Lawyers in America and that the lawyer had the highest rating in advertisements
• Washington State Bar Ethics Opinion 2070 (2004): Linking to the lawyer rating & directory company's independent attorney ratings on a firm's website
• Washington State Bar Ethics Opinion 2215 (2012): Cloud Computing
• Metadata Ethics Opinions Around the U.S., Comparison Table by ABA Law Practice Management Section
• New York State Bar Report on the Ethical Implications of Third-Party Litigation Funding, April 2013, Ethics Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association