Why Lawyers Don’t Respond to Negative Online Reviews
A Matter of Ethics and Confidentiality
In today's digital age, online reviews can significantly influence potential clients' perceptions of an attorney's competence and professionalism. It's natural for anyone researching legal services to come across negative reviews and wonder why the attorney hasn't responded to defend themselves. The answer lies deeply rooted in the ethical obligations that govern the legal profession.
When reading a negative review about an attorney, it's important to understand that the attorney's silence is not an admission of guilt or a lack of defense. Instead, it reflects a commitment to maintaining client confidentiality and adhering to ethical standards. This blog post will explore why attorneys often choose not to respond to negative online reviews, referencing key ethics opinions from the Supreme Court of Arizona and discussing the broader implications for both attorneys and clients.
The Importance of Confidentiality in Legal Practice
Confidentiality is one of the cornerstones of the attorney-client relationship. The Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.6, impose strict obligations on attorneys to protect information related to the representation of a client. This rule prohibits attorneys from revealing any information about a client's case without informed consent, unless specific exceptions apply.
The ethical duty of confidentiality ensures that clients can trust their attorneys with sensitive information, knowing it will not be disclosed. This trust is vital for effective legal representation, allowing clients to be open and honest with their attorneys.
Ethical Opinion EO-19-0010: Confidentiality and Online Reviews
The Supreme Court of Arizona’s Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee issued Ethics Opinion EO-19-0010 to address the ethical considerations for attorneys responding to online reviews. This opinion underscores that while there is no rule explicitly barring attorneys from responding to online reviews, any response must comply with the duty of confidentiality outlined in ER 1.6.
According to EO-19-0010, an attorney cannot disclose confidential information in response to an online review unless an exception to ER 1.6 applies. These exceptions are very limited and typically include situations where the attorney needs to prevent certain crimes, secure legal advice, establish a defense, or comply with a court order. However, these exceptions do not generally apply to the context of online reviews.
The opinion further emphasizes that disclosing confidential client information in response to an online review is not impliedly authorized to carry out representation. Therefore, attorneys must refrain from revealing any specifics about their clients or cases when addressing negative reviews online.
Why Silence is Ethical
When you read a negative review about an attorney and notice their lack of response, it's essential to recognize that this silence is an ethical decision. The attorney's primary obligation is to protect their client's confidentiality, even if it means not defending themselves against public criticism. This commitment to ethics ensures that all clients receive the same level of trust and confidentiality.
For instance, the recommended response by the Ethics Advisory Committee to a negative review is a generic, non-specific statement such as: "A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions, and in an abundance of caution, I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point-by-point fashion in this forum. Suffice it to say, I do not believe that the post presents a fair and accurate picture of the events." This type of response maintains the confidentiality of the client while signaling that the review may not be an accurate reflection of the attorney’s services.
The Dissenting Opinion: A Different Perspective
The dissenting opinion of EO-19-0010 offers a different perspective, arguing that the opinion overly restricts lawyers and prevents them from defending themselves against false online attacks. The dissent suggests that online comments alleging malpractice or unethical conduct could establish a "controversy" justifying limited disclosure under ER 1.6(d)(4).
ER 1.6(d)(4) allows for the disclosure of confidential information to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client. The dissent argues that this should apply to online reviews, as false allegations can significantly harm an attorney’s reputation and livelihood.
While this view acknowledges the challenges attorneys face in dealing with online criticism, the majority opinion and current ethical standards prioritize protecting client confidentiality above all else.
Public Commentary: The Need for Balance
Public comments on EO-19-0010 reflect a range of opinions. Some argue that negative public comments by clients should waive confidentiality, allowing attorneys to provide more detailed responses. Others emphasize the need for transparency and the public's right to hear both sides of the story.
For example, one commenter noted, “There is no good reason to restrict a lawyer’s ability to respond to a client’s negative online or other public review with whatever information may be reasonably relevant or material to the claims made in the negative review.” Another pointed out that while it is important to protect client confidentiality, limiting an attorney’s ability to defend themselves can deprive the public of a complete picture of the situation.
The balance between protecting client confidentiality and allowing attorneys to defend their reputations is delicate. The current ethical standards err on the side of caution, ensuring that client information remains protected at all costs.
The Practical Implications for Clients
Understanding these ethical obligations can help potential clients make more informed decisions when choosing an attorney. Here are a few key takeaways:
Respect for Confidentiality: An attorney’s refusal to respond to a negative review is often a sign of their commitment to maintaining client confidentiality and adhering to ethical standards. This respect for confidentiality is crucial for building trust in the attorney-client relationship.
Researching Attorneys: Instead of relying solely on online reviews, consider other factors such as the attorney’s experience, areas of specialization, and professional reputation. Personal referrals and consultations can also provide valuable insights.
Communicating Concerns: If you have concerns about an attorney's performance, address them directly and privately with the attorney. This approach allows for open communication and resolution without compromising confidentiality.
Ethical Obligations: Recognize that ethical obligations may limit what an attorney can disclose publicly. Silence or a generic response does not necessarily indicate agreement with negative claims but rather adherence to ethical rules.
Conclusion: Ethics Above All
The decision of an attorney not to respond to negative online reviews reflects a deeper commitment to ethical standards and the protection of client confidentiality. While this may leave some questions unanswered in the public forum, it upholds the integrity of the legal profession and ensures that clients can trust their attorneys with their most sensitive information.
Potential clients should consider the ethical constraints that govern attorney conduct and seek a comprehensive understanding of an attorney's qualifications and reputation through various sources. By doing so, they can make more informed decisions and appreciate the high ethical standards that guide the legal profession.
For more information about attorney ethics and confidentiality, or to discuss your legal needs, please contact our office directly. We are committed to providing the highest level of service while maintaining the utmost respect for client confidentiality.
