EthicsOpinion316

LawyersParticipationinChatRoomCommunicationsWithInternetUsersSeeking
LegalInformation

Itispermissibleforlawyerstotakepartinonlinechatroomsandsimilararrangementsthroughwhich
attorneysengageinbackandforthcommunications,inrealtimeornearlyrealtime,withInternetusers
seekinglegalinformation,providedtheycomplywithallapplicablerulesofprofessionalconduct.Toavoid
formationofattorneyclientrelationshipsthroughsuchchatroomconversations,lawyersshouldavoidgiving
specificlegaladvice.IfalawyersubjecttotheD.C.RulesofProfessionalConductengagesinchatroom
communicationsofsufficientparticularityandspecificitytogiverisetoanattorneyclientrelationshipunderthe
substantivelawofastatewithjurisdictiontoregulatethecommunication,thatlawyermustcomplywiththefull
arrayofD.C.Rulesgoverningattorneyclientrelationships.

ApplicableRules
Rule1.1(Competence)
Rule1.2(ScopeofRepresentation)
Rule1.3(DiligenceandZeal)
Rule1.4(Communication)
Rule1.6(Confidentiality)
Rules1.7,1.9(RulesonConflictofInterest)
Rule7.1(CommunicationsConcerningaLawyersServices)

Inquiry
Wehaverecentlyaddressedanumberofissuesrelatedtoattorneysparticipationinthecyberspace
communicationsrevolution.1(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote1)Wewritehereto
consideranissueleftunaddressedbytheseearlieropinionsnamely,thepermissibilityoflawyers
participationinonlinechatrooms,"listservs,andsimilararrangementsthroughwhichlawyersengagein
interactivecommunications,inrealtimeornearlyrealtime,withInternetusersseekinglegalinformation.2
(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote2)

Priortodraftingthisopinion,onecommitteememberundertookaninformalsurveyofwebsitesofferingchat
roomsonlawrelatedtopics.Asamplingofsuchsitesrevealedawidearrayofservicesofferingoneonone
communicationswithlicensedattorneys,manywithcatchynamessuchasFreeAdviceandDadsDivorce.
Thesecommunicationsweresometimesfree,butsomeserviceschargedusersafee.3(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote3)Manyprovidedamultitudeoflawrelatedservices,includingnotonlylive
attorneychatrooms,butalsoattorneydirectories,treatisesandlegalreports,andlinkstootherlawrelated
informationsources.Ouranalysisheresolelyconcernslawyersparticipationinthefeaturesofthesesitesthat
offervisitorsinteractivecommunicationswithlicensedattorneysonlegaltopics.4(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote4)

Everychatroomwevisiteddisplayedprominentdisclaimers,oftenasaclickthroughpagetowhichvisitors
mustindicateconsentbeforeproceeding,alongthefollowinglines:
Pleasenote...thischatroomisforinformationalpurposesonlyandisnotintendedtobeusedasspecificlegal
adviceinanyway,shapeorform.Participatinginthischatroomdoesnotestablishanattorneyclientrelationship
forpersonallegaladviceconsultyourattorney.

Suchnoticesalsotypicallydisclaimedallwarrantiesastothequalityandaccuracyofthelegalinformationprovidedand
purportedtodisavowtheserviceprovidersliabilityforallharmarisingfromuseoftheservice.Mostchatroomserviceswe
visitedfurtherdisclaimedanydutytokeepinformationprovidedbyparticipantsconfidential,thoughone,devotedto
immigrationlaw,promisedtomakeitsbesteffortstoprotectfromthirdpartiesinformationtransmittedbyparticipants.Allthe
siteswevisitedemphasizedthattheirpurposewastoprovidelegalinformation,butnotlegaladvice.
WhetherandhowparticipatingattorneysarepermittedtofollowupwithInternetuserswithwhomtheyengage
insuchcommunicationsappearedtovary.OnesitestatedthatthelawyerdoesNOTreceiveanyportionof
yourfee,andwillNOTserveasyourlegalcounsel,duringLiveChatorthereafter,soyoucangetacompletely
candidevaluation.Atothersites,however,theattorneysansweringquestionsinchatroomsprominently
providedtheirfullcontactinformationattheopeningofthechatsessionandinvitedchatroomparticipantsto
contactthemdirectlyafterthechatsessionended.5(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote5)

Wedidnotsystematicallymonitorthecommunicationsthatweretakingplaceinchatroomswelocated,nordid
wetestanysitebysubmittinganinquiryfromanindividual.Nevertheless,wedidreadvariousconversations
takingplaceinchatroomsthatwereopentothepublicwithoutcharge.Hereisonerandomlyselected
exchangethattookplaceinonepublicchatroom:

Q:IamintheUSonavisawaiverfromUK[that]expireson8thSept.Ihavebeentoldbyanabusivehusbandnot
toreturn.IamthereforehomelesshehastoldimmigrationofficialsaboutmetheytoldhimthatIwontbe
allowedtoreentertheStates.ThisistheonlyplaceIhaveahome!!!!!!Pleasehelp?...

A.Baseduponthestatementsyoumade,itappearsthatyouareinstatusandyourvisaexpires
onSeptember8,2001.Itisdifficulttochangestatusfromthevisawaiver.Additionallyyoumight
wanttoapplyforanonimmigrantvisa,suchasastudent(F)visa.Youwillprobablyberequired
toleavetheUnitedStatestoobtainit.Ifyouhavenointerestineducationyoumightwanttoapply
foranonimmigrantworkvisa.Withoutknowingmoreaboutyourbackground,Idonotknowifyou
areeligibleforanyworkvisas.Ifyouknowofaspecificvisaforwhichyouwanttoapply.Orif
youwouldliketodiscussthiswithme.Ioffera10minutefreetelephoneconsultation.XXXXXX
XXXXismydirectline.

Analysis
I.
Legalethicscommitteesinseveraljurisdictionshaveturnedtheirattentiontolawyersparticipationinchatroomsprovidinglegal
information,especiallyassuchparticipationmayinvolveattorneysolicitationofclients.6 (/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote6)AswerecentlyobservedinOpinion302,however,theD.C.rulesonclient
solicitationdifferfromthoseofmanyotherjurisdictionsinthatD.C.Rule7.1doesnotcontainablanketprohibitionagainstin
personsolicitation.Instead,wenoted,thetouchstoneofRule7.1iswhetherlawyerscommunicationsaboutthemselvesortheir
servicesarefalseormisleading.7.1(a)Opinion302(2000).EssentiallythesameprescriptionsasthoseweoutlinedinOpinion
302applytoattorneycommunicationsinchatroomsorsimilarservices,includingthatthecommunicationsmustbeaccurate,
lawyersmaynotimplythattheyaredisinterestedinparticularmatterswhentheyarenot,lawyersmustdiscloseanyfeestheypay
inordertoparticipate,andsuchfeesmaynotbelinkedtoorcontingentontheamountoflegalfeesthelawyermayobtainfrom
clientsobtainedthroughonlineservices.SeeOpinion302.

Becauseourrulesdonotdrawasharpdistinctionbetweeninpersonandwrittensolicitations,7(/bar
resources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote7)weneednotdecideaquestionthathasbeencentralto
manylegalethicscommitteesopinionsnamely,whetherchatroomcommunicationsshouldbeanalogizedto
thetypesofinpersonsolicitationprohibitedintheirstates.8(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote8)Instead,underourRuleswethinkitbesttoregardchatroom
communicationsashavingsomequalitiesthataresimilartoinpersoncommunicationsandsomethatare
different.Thepotentiallygreaterimmediacyofrealtimecommunicationsinchatrooms,asopposedtoother
formsofwrittencommunications,maygiverisetoconcernssimilartothoseaboutinpersonsolicitationin
circumstancesorthroughmeansthatarenotconducivetointelligent,rationaldecisions,D.C.Rule7.1,
comment[5].Lawyerscommunicatingabouttheirservicesinchatroomsthereforemusttakecarenottorun
afoulofD.C.Rule7.1(b)(2),whichprohibitssolicitationsthatinvolvetheuseofundueinfluence,andD.C.
Rule7.1(b)(3),whichprohibitslawyersfromseekingemploymentbyapotentialclientwhosephysicalor
mentalconditionmakesrationaljudgmentabouttheselectionofanattorneyunlikely."9(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote9)Ontheotherhand,attorneycommunicationswithpotentialclientsin
chatroomsareprobablylesspotentiallycoercivethanfacetofacecommunications.Asonestatebarethics
committeeobserved,apotentialclientsolicitedthroughacyberspacecommunication,eveninrealtime,has
theoptionofsimplynotresponding."10(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote10)
Wereiterate,furthermore,asweemphasizedinOpinion302,thatoneofthemostdistinctivecharacteristicsof
cyberspacecommunicationstheirreachfarbeyondtheboundsofanyparticularjurisdictionraises
significantissuesforpractitionersabouttheapplicabilityofthelawsofmultiplejurisdictions.Consistentwithour
mandate,wehereconsidertheapplicabilityoftheD.C.RulesofProfessionalConductonly,butwecaution
readersthatotherjurisdictionsrulesmayapplyaswell.
II.
Toourminds,themostdifficultquestionspresentedbylawyersparticipationinonlinechatroomsinwhichtheyanswervisitors
legalquestionsinvolvethepossibilityofinadvertentformationofattorneyclientrelationshipsandtheconsequencesthereof.We
previouslyprovidedtentativebestpracticesguidanceonattorneycommunicationsovertheInternettoavoidsuchproblems,
includingtheuseofprominentclickthroughdisclaimers.SeeD.C.EthicsOp.302.Wecaution,however,thateventheuseofa
disclaimermaynotpreventtheformationofattorneyclientrelationshipsifthepartiessubsequentconductisinconsistentwith
thedisclaimer.11 (/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote11)Indeed,alengthyscholarlyexaminationof
variousjurisdictionslawonthetopicreachedthesameconclusion.12(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote12)
ProfessorCatherineLanctotarguesthatthebroadclickthroughdisclaimerstypicallyusedbywebsitesofferingliveattorney
chatrooms,thoughhelpfulinavoidinginadvertentformationofattorneyclientrelationships,maynotpreventtheformationof
suchrelationshipsincasesinwhichsubsequentonlinecommunicationsinvolveaconsumeraskingforandanattorneyproviding
specificlegaladvicetailoredtothefactsoftheconsumersparticularsituation.13(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote13)Itthusseemsappropriatetoexpandonourearlierbestpracticesdiscussionforattorney
communicationsovertheInternettoaddresslawyersparticipationinchatrooms.

Lawyersparticipationinchatroomsmayimplicatecompetingethicalvalues.Ontheonehand,lawyersduties
toinformthepublicaboutthelawarewellrecognized.ABAModelCodeEC22providedthatthelegal
professionshouldassistlaypersonstorecognizelegalproblemsandthatlawyersshouldtherefore
encourageandparticipateineducationalandpublicrelationprogramsconcerningourlegalsystem,and
stateswhoseethicsrulesarebasedontheModelCodecontinuetohavesuchprovisionsintheirethicscodes.
See,e.g.,N.Y.CodeofProf.Resp.EC22.AlthoughtheD.C.RulesofProfessionalConductdonotcontaina
provisionequivalenttoEC22,thereiseveryreasontobelieve,consistentwiththetraditionsoftheprofession,
thattheseethicaldutiestocontributetomakinglegalinformationavailabletothepubliccontinuetoholdstrong
here.Cf.D.C.Rule6.1comments[1]&[2](notingthatD.C.Rule6.1wasintendedtocarryforwardlong
standingethicalprinciplesintheCode,especiallyCanon2).

Ontheotherhand,theethicalimpetusthatmotivateslawyerstohelpthepublicbecomeawareoflegal
problemscannotinsulatelawyersfromtheconsequencesarisingfromformationofanattorneyclient
relationshipastheresultofprovidinglegaladvice.Thequestionofpreciselywhatconductgivesrisetoan
attorneyclientrelationshipisoneofsubstantivelawintherelevantjurisdiction(s).Becausetheissueunder
discussionturnsonthatquestion,areviewofthebasicprinciplesconcerningtheformationofattorneyclient
relationshipsisinorderhere.Mostcourtsagree,forexample,thatneitheraretainernoraformalagreementis
requiredtoestablishanattorneyclientrelationship.See,e.g.,Kurtenbachv.TeKippe,260N.W.2d53,56
(Iowa1977)seealsoInreLieber,442A.2d153(D.C.1982)(attorneyclientrelationshipformedwhere
attorneyfailedtoindicatelackofconsenttoacceptcourtappointedclientafterreceivingnotificationof
appointmentbymail).InKurtenbach,thecourtlookedto(1)whethertheputativeclienthadsoughtadvicefrom
thelawyer,(2)whethertheadvicesoughtwaswithinthelawyersfieldofcompetence,and(3)whetherthe
lawyer,eitherdirectlyorimplicitly,agreedtogivetherequestedadvice.Kurtenbach,260N.W.2dat56.Many
courtslooktothereasonableexpectationsandrelianceoftheputativeclient.See,e.g.,InreLieber,442A.2d
at156.Underthisapproach,evencasuallyrenderedadvicemaybefoundtogiverisetoanattorneyclient
relationshipwheretheputativeclientreliesonit.See,e.g.,Togstadv.Vesely,Otto,Miller&Keffe,291N.W.2d
686(Minn.1980)(attorneyclientrelationshipcreatedwhereattorneystatedthathedidnotthinkaprospective
clienthadacauseofactionbutwoulddiscussitwithhispartner,didnotcallclientback,andclientreliedon
attorneysassessmentanddidnotcontinuetoseeklegalrepresentation).
Inlightofthesegeneralprinciples,lawyersseekingtoavoidformationofattorneyclientrelationshipsthroughchatroom
conversationswouldbewelladvisedtoavoidprovidinglegaladviceinsuchcommunications.14(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote14)Therelevantdistinctionisthatbetweenlegaladviceandlegalinformation.Providing
legalinformationinvolvesdiscussionoflegalprinciples,trends,andconsiderationsthekindofinformationonemightgiveina
speechornewspaperarticle,forexample.Providinglegaladvice,ontheotherhand,involvesofferingrecommendationstailored
totheuniquefactsofaparticularpersonscircumstances.Thus,indiscussinglegalinformation,lawyersshouldbecarefulto
emphasizethatitisintendedasgeneralinformationonly,whichmayormaynotbeapplicabletoanindividualsspecific
situation.LegalethicscommitteesinjurisdictionswhereEC22isstillineffecthaveadvisedpreciselythisapproach.InNew
YorkCityEthicsOp.19982(1998),forexample,thecommitteesuggestedthat:
 Alawyerwhowritesorspeaksforthepurposeofeducatingmembersofthepublictorecognizetheirlegal
problemsshouldcarefullyrefrainfromgivingorappearingtogiveageneralsolutionapplicabletoallapparently
similarindividualproblemssinceslightchangesinfactsituationsmayrequireamaterialvarianceintheapplicable
adviceotherwise,thepublicmaybemisledandmisadvised.Talksandwritingbylawyersfornonlawyersshould
cautionthemnottoattempttosolveindividualproblemsuponthebasisoftheinformationcontainedtherein.

Likewise,inOhioSup.Ct.Bd.ofCommrsonGrievancesandDiscipl.,Op.9413(1994),thecommitteeconcludedthatin
givinglegalseminars,itwouldbeprudentforthelawyertoadvisetheattendeesthatthelawyersdiscussioninregardto
questionswillbegeneralandnotintendedasindividualadviceforspecificproblems,andthatitmaybehelpfulfortheattorney
toremindtheattendeesnottodivulgeconfidentialinformation.Thecommitteefurtherwarnedthat,intakingpartinradiotalk
shows,particularcautioniswarranted,becausetheformatofteninviteslistenerstoaskquestions.Thelawyermustbe
extremelycarefulnottoimpartindividualadvice.(Citationsomitted).Thefactthatlawyersmaynowbeprovidingthepublic
withlegalinformationthroughInternetcommunicationsratherthanmoretraditionalforasuchaspubliclecturesortalkshows
doesnotalterthisfundamentalanalysis.

Consistentwiththatanalysis,lawyerswishingtoavoidformationofattorneyclientrelationshipsthroughchat
roomorsimilarInternetcommunicationsshouldlimitthemselvestoprovidinglegalinformation,andshouldnot
seektoelicitorrespondtothespecificsofparticularindividualssituations.Lawyerscould,forexample,explain
generalprinciplesortrendsinthelaw,orlayoutthemajorityandminorityviewpointsand/ortherangeof
variationonparticularlegalissuesacrossjurisdictions,orevendescribeaparticularjurisdictionslaw.But
lawyersshouldadviseinformationseekerstoobtainlegalcounseltodeterminewhatlawwouldbeapplicableto
theiruniquecircumstances.Likewise,lawyersparticipatinginchatroomexchangescouldexplainthe
approachestocertainlegalproblemslawyerstypicallyconsider,butshouldnotpurporttoadviseinquirersasto
whattodointheirspecificsituations.Whereacommunicationislengthyorotherwisemightleaveroomfor
misunderstanding,lawyersshouldremindinquirersthatthechatroomcommunicationisnotasubstitutefor
specificlegaladvice,andthatthelawyerisprovidinggenerallegalinformationonly.

Toillustrate,wewillusetheexamplewegaveaboveofonechatroomconversationweencountered.The
lawyerinthatcasemighthavebeenbetteradvisedtorespondtotheinquirersqueryalongthefollowinglines:
Generally,personswhoareintheU.S.onnonexpiredvisawaiversareinstatus.Suchpersons,however,mayoften
finditdifficulttochangestatusfromavisawaiver.Theymighttrytoapplyforanonimmigrantvisa,suchasa
studentvisa,buttheywouldprobablyberequiredtoleavetheUnitedStatestoobtainsuchavisa.Another
possibilitysomepersonsinthissituationexploreistoapplyforanonimmigrantworkvisa.Icannotgiveyoulegal
adviceonyourparticularsituation,butifyouwouldliketodiscussyourspecificcasewithme,youmaycallmefor
aconsultation....

Suchwordingmakesitmoreclearthatthelawyerisnotpurportingtogivelegaladvicethandidtherepeatedyoushould
statementscontainedintheattorneysresponsequotedearlierinthisopinion.

III.
ThelastquestionweaddressconcernstheconsequencesundertheD.C.RulesofProfessionalConductofformationofan
attorneyclientrelationshipthroughanattorneysparticipationinachatroomorsimilarInternetlegalinformationservice.Inour
view,ifanattorneyclientrelationshipisformedthroughcyberspacecommunicationsinwhichaninquirerseeks,andalawyer
provides,specificlegaladvice,thatrelationshipbringstobearalloftheresponsibilitiesandbenefitsdefinedundertheD.C.Rules
governingattorneyclientrelationships,eventhoughthelawyerhasnotmettheclientintheconventionalsenseandmaynot
evenknowtheclientsidentity.15(/barresources/legalethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote15)AlthoughD.C.Rule1.2(c)permitsa
lawyertolimittheobjectivesoftherepresentationiftheclientconsentsafterconsultation,thisrulefurtherprovidesthatany
suchagreementconcerningthescopeofrepresentationmustaccordwiththeRulesofProfessionalConductandotherlaw.D.C.
Rule1.2(c)&comment[5].Comment[5]continues,theclientmaynotbeaskedtoagreetorepresentationssolimitedinscopeas
toviolateRule1.1.Inotherwords,whileitispermissibleforanattorneyandclienttoagreetoarepresentationthatislimitedin
scope(suchasinbeingofshortdurationorforthepurposeofgivinglegaladviceononediscretelegalproblem),itisnot
permissibletofurtherlimitthescopeofsucharepresentationtoavoidtheapplicationofrulesrequiringcompetenceandthelike.
Normaythelawyerrestricthisorherobligationswithrespecttosuchmattersasconflictsorconfidentiality.16(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote16)

Thus,beforeundertakingthekindofcommunicationthatwouldgiverisetoanattorneyclientrelationshipas
determinedbyapplicablesubstantivelaw,theattorneymust,inourview,ensurethattheformationofthat
relationshipdoesnotgiverisetoimpermissibleconflictsunderD.C.Rules1.7,1.8,1.9,and1.11.Theattorney
mustalsosafeguardthesecretsandconfidencesofthatclientunderRule1.6.17(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote17)Thismaybetrueevenifanattorneyclientrelationshiphasnotformed
butthelawyerisinasituationinwhichheorsheproperlyshouldregardanadviceseekerasaprospective
client,asmightbeespeciallylikelytoariseinsettingsinwhichlawyersarepermittedtosolicitorfollowupwith
chatroomvisitors.SeeD.C.Rule1.10(a)comments[7][12]seegenerallyRestatement(Third)oftheLaw
GoverningLawyers15(1)(a)(2000)(lawyerowesdutiestoprospectiveclientstoprotectconfidential
information).Accordingly,evenifacommunicationbeginsasapubliccommunicationinachatroomorsimilar
exchangeservice,theattorneymayberequiredatsomepointtoreservehisorhercommunicationsforthe
eyesofaparticularadviceseekeronly.Andtheattorneymustalwaystakecareincyberspace,asinfaceto
facecommunications,thatinformationheorshereceivesthroughonlinecommunicationsdoesnotendup
creatingconflictofinterestproblemswithrespecttoexistingclients.18(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote18)Likewise,theattorneymustensurethatsuchrequirementsasthatof
competenceunderD.C.Rule1.1,diligenceandzealunderRule1.3,andadequatecommunicationunderRule
1.4aremet.

Advocatesoftheprovisionoflowcostlegaladvicethroughonlinechatroomsandsimilarinnovativeservices
maketheimportantpointthattheseservicesoffergreatpotentialforprovidinglowcostlegalservicestolow
andmoderateincomepersons.SeegenerallyConferenceontheDeliveryofLegalServicestoLowIncome
Persons:ProfessionalandEthicalIssues,67FordhamL.Rev.1751(1999)Symposium:Lawyeringforthe
MiddleClass,70FordhamL.Rev.623(2001)(discussingneedforinnovationinlegalservicesdelivery
mechanismsforbothlowandmiddleincomeclients).Wedonotdisputethisobservationorthespiritof
concernandexperimentationwithwhichitismade.Indeed,manybelievethatdevisingbetter,lowercostways
ofprovidingqualitylegalservicestolowandmoderateincomepopulationsisoneofthelegalprofessionsmost
pressingproblems.Anumberofproposalsarebeingconsideredalongtheselines,includingthepossibilityof
allowinglimitedpurposeattorneyclientrelationshipsthatmightunbundleordisaggregatesomeofthe
responsibilitiesanddutiestraditionallyrequiredoflawyers.InitsproposedModelRuleofProfessionalConduct
1.2,forexample,theABAEthics2000Commissionstatedthatalawyermaylimitthescopeofthe
representationifthelimitationisreasonableunderthecircumstances,"19(/barresources/legal
ethics/opinions/opinion316.cfm#footnote19)achangetheCommissionsreporterexplainsisintendedinpartto
provideaframeworkwithinwhichlawyersmayexpandaccesstolegalservicesbyprovidinglimitedbut
nonethelessvaluablelegalservicetolowormoderateincomepersonswhootherwisewouldbeunableto
obtaincounsel."

Reformsthatwouldalterthetraditionaldutiesandobligationslawyersoweclients,however,arenot
encompassedwithintheD.C.RulesofProfessionalConductcurrentlyineffect.Suchreformswillhavetoawait
theattentionoftheD.C.CourtofAppeals.Asourrulescurrentlystand,thefullpanoplyofethical
considerations,includingconflictavoidance,confidentiality,competenceandthelike,attachtoallattorney
clientrelationships,includingthosethatmaybeformedinadvertentlythroughattorneycommunicationswith
personsseekinglegalinformationovertheInternet.

July2002

1.InOpinion281,weconcludedthatlawyersmaysendconfidentialclientinformationthroughunencrypted
electronicmail,exceptwherespecialcircumstanceswarrantahigherlevelofcareaboutpreservinga
communicationsconfidentiality.InOpinion302,wedecidedthatlawyersmayusewebsitestoadvertisefor
plaintiffsforclassactionlawsuits,providedthattheycomplywithallofourethicalrequirementsasto
truthfulnessandothermatters,andofferedsometentativebestpracticesguidanceastohowlawyersmight
wanttostructureemailcommunicationswithpotentialclients.Id.WealsoconcludedinOpinion302that
lawyersmayusewebsitesthatofferopportunitiestobidcompetitivelyonlegalprojectspostedbyprospective
clients,againprovidedthelawyerscomplywithallapplicablerulesofprofessionalconduct.Id.

2.Inchatrooms,individualstypedcommunicationsappearinrealtimei.e.,astheyarebeingtypedon
thecomputerscreensofotherparticipants.Onlistservs,individualscommunicationsaresenttoacentrale
mailaddress,whichthenredistributesthecommunicationstoallsubscribersemailaddresses.

3.Onemultipurposesite,forexample,offeredrealtime,oneononechatswithamemberofitsstaffof
licensedattorneys,foreither$15forasinglechatofupto30minutes,oranannualsubscriptionrateof$30.
Anothercharged$10foraoneweeksubscriptionthatenablesyoutoaskthelawyeraquestion,oneonone,
andtoreceivebackanimmediateresponse.
4.Onesite,forexample,displayedachatcalendarlistingthedatesandtimesofscheduledchatsessions
withparticularattorneys,whowerefurtheridentifiedthroughlinkstotheirlawfirmwebpageswhichcontained
furtherbiographicalinformation.

5.Wecouldfindinformationaboutthefinancialtermsgoverningattorneysparticipationinsuchchatroomsat
onlyafewofthewebsiteswevisited.Onedevotedtoimmigrationlawissuesexplainedthatattorneysmay
purchase,for$200peryear,aBasicMembership,consistingofalistinginanInternetattorneyyellowpages,
adirectweblinkfromthisdirectorytotheattorneyswebsite,andeligibil[ity]tojoinourteamofattorneyswho
conductlivechatsor,alternatively,for$1,200peryear,aPremiumMembership,providingallthebenefitsof
basicmembershipplusaccesstocertaincasetrackingsoftware.Anotherstatedthatthelawyersrespondingto
questionsinitschatroomswereemployeesonitsstaff.

6.See,e.g.,FloridaBarStandingComm.onAdvertisingOp.A001(2000)Mich.StateBarComm.onProf.
andJudicialEthics,Op.RI276(1996)UtahStateBarAssnEthicsOp.9710(1997)WestVirginiaEthics
Op.9803(1998).

7.D.C.Rule7.1coversallcommunicationsconcerningalawyersservicestheD.C.Rulesdonotinclude
provisionspatternedafterABAModelRules7.2and7.3,whichregulateadvertisingandsolicitation,
respectively.

8.See,e.g.,FloridaBarStandingComm.onAdvertisingOp.A001(Floridalawyersmaynotsolicit
prospectiveclientsthroughrealtimeconversationsinInternetchatroomsunderstatesrestrictionsonin
personsolicitation)Mich.StateBarComm.onProf.andJudicialEthics,Op.RI276(solicitationofclients
throughrealtimecommunicationsinInternetchatroomsviolatesstatesrestrictionsoninpersonand
telephonesolicitation).

9.See,e.g.,UtahEthicsOp.9710(analogizingchatroomcommunicationtoinpersoncommunicationdueto
itsdirectandconfrontationalnature)MichiganStateBarStandingComm.onProf.andJudicialEthicsOp.
RI276(notingimmediacyofinteractiveelectroniccommunication).

10.ArizonaStateBarAssnEthicsOp.9704(1997)(communicationswithpotentialclientsinchatrooms
shouldnotbedeemedaprohibitedinpersoncontactbecausethereisnotthesamedegreeofconfrontation
andimmediacy).

11.See,e.g.,NewYorkCityEthicsOp.19982(1998)(useofadisclaimermaynotnecessarilyservetoshield
LawFirmfromaclaimthatanattorneyclientrelationshipwasinfactestablishedbyreasonofspecificonline
communications)UtahStateBarEthicsOp.9612(1997)(iflegaladviceissoughtfromanattorney,ifthe
advicesoughtispertinenttotheattorneysprofession,andiftheattorneygivestheadviceforwhichfeeswillbe
charged,anattorneyclientrelationshipiscreatedthatcannotbedisclaimedbytheattorneygivingtheadvice.)
(footnoteandcitationsomitted).Indeed,achatroomvisitorwhoismisledbyadisclaimerpurportingtodisavow
liabilityforlegaladvicemightevenhaveanargumentthatthedisclaimerwasfalseandmisleadingwithinthe
meaningofD.C.Rule7.1(a).

12.SeeCatherineJ.Lanctot,AttorneyClientRelationshipsinCyberspace:ThePerilandthePromise,49
DukeL.J.147,14997(1999)seealsoJoanC.Rogers,CyberlawyersMustChartUncertainCourseinWorld
ofOnlineAdvice,16ABA/BNALawyersManualonProfessionalConductSpecialReport96(2000)(quoting
otherlegalcommentatorssimilarconclusionsthatbroaddisclaimersmaynotpreventtheformationof
attorneyclientrelationshipsthroughcyberspacecommunications).

13.Lanctot,supranote12,at248.Insupportofthisconclusion,Lanctotcitesopinionsconsideringlawyers
useofdisclaimersinavarietyofcontexts,includingKansasBarAssnComm.onEthics/AdvisoryServs.,Op.
938(1993)(Alawyeroperatinga900payforinformationtelephonenumberbywhichcallersaregivenlegal
information...entersintoalawyerclientrelationshipwiththecallerandmaynotavoiditbydisclaimer.)N.J.
Sup.Ct.Comm.onUnauthorizedPrac.,Op.17(1994)(attorneycannotavoidmalpracticeliabilityinrendering
legaladvicetoclientorprospectiveclientthrough900numberservicebydisclaimingattorneyclient
relationship).SeeLanctot,supranote12,at19293n.146.

14.ThisisespeciallytrueforInternetcommunications,wheregivinglegaladvicemightcreateanattorneyclient
relationshipandthussubjectanattorneytomalpracticeliabilityinafardistantjurisdiction.SeeNewYorkCity
EthicsOp.19982(1998)(emphasizingneedforcautiongivenInternetsmultijurisdictionalreach).
15.Thisconclusionisconsistentwiththatofanotherstatebarethicscommitteethathasconsideredtheissue.
SeeIll.StateBarAssnComm.onProf.Conduct9610(1997)(lawyersparticipatinginchatgroupsorother
onlineservicesthatcouldinvolveofferingpersonalizedlegaladvicetoanyonewhohappenstobeconnected
totheserviceshouldbemindfulthattherecipientsofsuchadvi[c]earethelawyersclients,withthebenefits
andburdensofthatrelationship.)seealsoOhioSup.Ct.Bd.ofCommronGrievancesandDiscipl.,Op.999
(1999)(attorneyswhoanswerlegalquestionsforafeeposedbyvisitorstofirmswebsitesubjecttosame
constraintsthatgovernothermethodsofdeliveringlegalservices,includingrequirementsofconflictschecks,
competence,andconfidentiality).

16.SeeIll.StateBarAssnComm.onProf.Conduct9610(followingitsprioropinioncautioningthatattorneys
whogavelegaladvicethroughatelephoneservicecouldeasilyrunafouloftheconflictofinterestprovisionsof
Rules1.7and1.9,toconcludethatlawyersparticipatinginsimilaractivityovertheInternetwouldbesubjectto
thesameconcerns)seealsoArizonaStateBarEthicsAssnOp.9704(concludingthatlawyersshouldnot
answerspecificquestionsorgivefactspecificadviceinchatroomsbecausetheywouldbeunabletoscreen
forpotentialconflictsandwouldriskconfidentialityproblems).

17.AclientmaywaiveconfidentialityunderD.C.Rule1.6,butonlyafterfulldisclosureandconsent.D.C.
Rule1.6(d)(1).[C]onsentrequiresuncoercedassentfollowingconsultationwiththelawyerregardingthe
matterinquestion,andconsultationrequirescommunicationofinformationreasonablysufficienttopermit
theclienttoappreciatethesignificanceofthematterinquestion(D.C.RulesTerminology[2]&[3])
requirementsthatmaynotbemetinthecontextofassentthroughaclickthroughdisclaimer.Aswenotedin
Opinion309,waiversofconfidentialitymaybeespeciallyproblematicandthusrequireparticularscrutinyand
maybeinvalidevenwhengrantedbysophisticatedclientswithindependentcounsel.Op.309n.10.

18.Thebestwayofavoidingconflictproblems,ofcourse,wouldbetorefrainfromcreationofanattorney
clientrelationshipinthefirstplace.Lawyersmightalsoaskthatchatroomparticipantsabstainfromproviding
confidentialinformation,asalreadydiscussed.Thesestepswouldnotnecessarilyeliminateallconflicts
problems,however,whichagainpointstotheneedtoeschewtheformationofattorneyclientrelationships.

19.Proposedcomment[7]explainsthatreasonableunderthecircumstancesmeansthat[i]f,forexample,a
clientsobjectiveislimitedtosecuringgeneralinformationaboutthelawtheclientneedsinordertohandlea
commonandtypicallyuncomplicatedlegalproblem,thelawyerandclientmayagreethatthelawyersservices
willbelimitedtoabrieftelephoneconsultation.Suchalimitation,however,wouldnotbereasonableifthetime
allottedwasnotsufficienttoyieldadviceuponwhichtheclientcouldrely.Althoughanagreementforalimited
representationdoesnotexemptalawyerfromthedutytoprovidecompetentrepresentation,thelimitationisa
factortobeconsideredwhendeterminingthelegalknowledge,skill,thoroughnessandpreparationreasonably
necessaryfortherepresentation.SeeRule1.1.
TheEthics2000CommissionsproposedapproachresemblesRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverning
Lawyers19(2000),whichlikewisepermitslawyerstolimitthedutiestheywouldoweaclientunderterms
reasonableunderthecircumstances.But,theRestatement,too,wouldsetafloorforthecompetence
required,usingthefollowingillustrationthatmightbeapropostosomechatroomexchanges:

3.Lawyerofferstoprovidetaxlawadviceforanhourlyfeelowerthanmosttaxlawyerscharge.Lawyerhas
littleknowledgeoftaxlawandasksLawyersoccasionaltaxclientstoagreetowaivetherequirementof
reasonablecompetence.Suchawaiverisinvalid,evenifclientsbenefittosomeextentfromthelowpriceand
consentfreelyandonthebasisofadequateinformation.