CAN LAWYERS INCENTIVISE ONLINE CLIENT REVIEWS ? ONE JURISDICTION SAYS YES
Can lawyers offer bill credits to clients who agree to submit online reviews about the quality of the lawyer ’ s services ?
CAN LAWYERS INCENTIVISE ONLINE CLIENT REVIEWS ? ONE JURISDICTION SAYS YES
JUSTICE DANIEL CROTHERS North Dakota Supreme Court
Can lawyers offer bill credits to clients who agree to submit online reviews about the quality of the lawyer ’ s services ? A New York ethics committee answered “ yes .” 1 Whether North Dakota lawyers can make similar offers is beyond the scope of this article , and a North Dakota lawyer contemplating a similar course of conduct may want to first seek guidance from the SBAND ethics committee . 2 the scores in the ratings , or whether a client checks the box recommending the lawyer to others .” 4
The New York committee first looked at their ethics Rule 7.2 ( a ) stating , “ A lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client , or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client ….” 5 North Dakota ’ s equivalent rule provides , “ A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer ’ s services ….” 6 violated its rules on “ testimonials ” and “ advertising .” The committee noted , “ Rule 7.1 ( d )( 3 ) allows lawyers to advertise testimonials from current and former clients – but Rule 7.1 ( e )( 4 ) requires that ‘ in the case of a testimonial or endorsement from a client with respect to a matter still pending , the client gives informed consent confirmed in writing .’” 10 However , “[ a ] client ’ s freely given review or rating is not an ‘ advertisement ’ within the definition in Rule 1.0 ( a ) because the review is not made ‘ by or on behalf ’ of the lawyer .” 11 The committee continued , stating :
The question asked in New York was whether a lawyer may give a client a $ 50 credit on their legal bill if the client rates the lawyer on an internet website such as Avvo . The New York opinion explained :
“ A lawyer would like more of his clients to rate him on Avvo , a website that allows clients to rate their lawyers with one to five stars . To rate a lawyer , a client would visit the Avvo website , look up the lawyer by name , and submit a review . * * * * Clients also rate the lawyer on a scale of 1 to 5 for five categories : ‘ Overall rating ,’ ‘ Trustworthy ,’ ‘ Responsive ,’ ‘ Knowledgeable ,’ and ‘ Kept me informed ,’ and clients either check or do not check a box saying that they would ‘ recommend ’ the lawyer .” 3
The New York lawyer ’ s bill credit “ would not be contingent on the content of a review ,
“
Can lawyers offer bill credits to clients who agree to submit online reviews about the quality of the lawyer ’ s services ?
”
The New York committee concluded the bill credit did not violate Rule 7.2 because the client was not required to “ recommend ” the lawyer . 7 Nor was the rule violated because the bill credit was not contingent on another person actually retaining the lawyer . 8 “ If the inquirer made the credit contingent on receiving a positive review or high scores , or if the inquirer made the credit contingent on being retained by a new client as a result of the rating , then the credit would violate Rule 7.2 ( a ). Those are not the facts before us .” 9
The New York committee next answered the question whether the rating incentive
“ If the inquirer were to coerce or compel a client to rate the lawyer with respect to a pending matter , then the rating ( i . e ., testimonial ) would be ‘ on behalf of the lawyer , and would hence be an “ advertisement ” subject to Rule 7.1 ( e ) ( 4 ). And if the lawyer , rather than the client , were to write the review or fill in the ratings , then they would be “ by … the lawyer ,” and would be advertisements under Rule 1.0 ( a ) subject to Rule 7.1 ( a ), which prohibits advertisements that are “ false , deceptive or misleading .”’” 12
North Dakota ’ s Rules of Professional
24 THE GAVEL