ethically speaking
by henry lee paul, esq.
T
he Supreme Court recently adopted a series of rule amendments In re: Amendments to The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Biennial Petition, SC20-1467. It is a reminder for Florida Bar members to discover the new amendments and refresh their knowledge with a comprehensive review of the rules. It is advisable lawyers conduct a periodic review of the rules as a risk management safeguard. It may surprise many to know it is common in my practice to hear a problem could have been avoided if only the rules had been reviewed. I will address a few of the most significant amendments. Perhaps the most impactful amendment is the addition to Rule 4-7.13(b)(12), which prohibits advertising that implicates association with another lawyer or law firm. Such conduct is now considered inherently misleading and could potentially result in the forfeiture of all fees obtained through such prohibited advertising. This type of prohibited advertising is most common with internet advertising employing search terms through such methods as Google AdWords. The rule now prohibits using search criteria that will cause a search for a particular lawyer
12
RES GESTAE
to result in production of links to another lawyer that causes the internet user to believe they have linked to the searchedfor lawyer when they have actually been deceptively redirected to another lawyer’s site. The Florida Bar has been struggling for years to try to regulate internet advertising, including what is commonly known as pay-per-click advertising. This amendment is an attempt to catch up with regulation of the ever-evolving internet advertising universe. A word of caution to those who advertise through pay-per-click. The identity of the advertising lawyer and the geographic location of the practice must be stated, even in an advertised link. Failure to provide such basic information will likely be considered inherently deceptive and could subject an advertising lawyer to discipline. This requirement has not been effectively communicated to Florida lawyers. Non-compliance with the name and location requirement is widespread, due in part to the fact that internet advertising services often do not advise lawyers of the need to provide such basic information in pay-per-click advertisements. Another major revision involves Rule 4-1.14 (Client with Diminished Capacity). LeeBar.org
There has been extensive review and revision of this rule which addresses what protective action may be appropriate when a lawyer represents a client who is at risk of inflicting substantial harm to themself. This rule should be consulted in the event any lawyer is confronted with such an unfortunate circumstance. Another significant amendment is the unequivocal requirement added to Rule 4-1.5(f ) which requires that disbursements to all participating lawyers be identified in a personal injury contingent fee case closing statement. Amendments to Rule 1-3.8(e) and Rule 5-1.2(d)(5) now clearly provide that a lawyer must complete the trust accounting compliance certificate on the annual dues statement or become a delinquent member. Notices of noncompliance will now be sent out to lawyers who do not provide a completed certificate by August 15 of each year.
Henry Lee Paul, Esq. is a former Bar Counsel for the Florida Bar who now represents lawyers in all matters before The Florida Bar and offers risk management services on all legal practice matters. He also represents applicants in all matters before The Florida Board of Bar Examiners.
