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
• CAL 2019-199: Attorney Directory and Rating Websites
• CAL 2020-203: Data Breaches
• CAL 2023-208: Ethical Obligations When Working Remotely

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
• LA 529: Ethical Risks in Using Social Media

Orange County Bar Ethics Opinions

• OCBA 2005-01: File Transfer and Work Product Rules Applicable to Electronic Files
• OCBA 2022-01: Attorney Bios

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?
• SDCBA 2013-3: May an attorney ethically charge a client for providing in-house services such as secretarial overtime, photocopying, processing electronic discovery, electronic legal research, the cost of CDs, mileage and parking, meals, Federal Express and postage and long distance telephone?
• SDCBA 2018-1: May a lawyer market legal services to mass disaster victims through targeted advertisements connected with the use of social media?
• SDCBA 2018-3: To what extent may lawyers use a technology-assisted review to identify documents to be produced in response to demands for production requiring analysis of voluminous documents?
• SDCBA 2019-1: Under what conditions may lawyers provide electronic form-based products to customers?
• SDCBA 2021-1: In what circumstances may a lawyer join a networking group that is not registered with the State Bar of California as a licensed attorney referral service?

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?
• SF 2021-1: Is a lawyer, who is licensed in one or more jurisdictions but practices law remotely from another jurisdiction where the lawyer resides and is not licensed, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law?

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
• ABA Formal Opinion 503: “Reply All” in Electronic Communication
• 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 256 (1995): Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Material to Opposing Counsel
• 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 2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 8: Advertising Inclusion in Self-Laudatory List or Organization
• 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