Bell & Brookman: 3 things to know about responding to online reviews

Pop quiz: Potential clients choose lawyers based on A) The lawyers’ reputation and stature in the community; B) “Vibes” the lawyer emits into the atmosphere; or C) Whether the lawyer has more 4+ star ratings than Mel’s Diner?

All of these answers are probably correct, but Google and other on-line reviews are becoming more important to some lawyers’ ability to bring in work. The importance of these on-line reviews has resulted in surprising behavior from some lawyers across the country.

Here are three things to know about responding to online reviews.

Protect client confidentiality

A few years ago, the American Bar Association addressed the issue of attorneys’ responses to online reviews in Formal Opinion 496.

The committee focused on the fact that it was difficult to respond to a negative review without disclosing confidential information protected by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The opinion emphasized that negative online reviews alone do not justify disclosure under Rule 1.6(b)(5), which permits the revelation of confidential information to “establish a . . . defense on behalf of a lawyer.”

Formal Opinion 496 provided practical steps for addressing negative reviews in their opinion:

• Request the site host to remove the review.

• Consider not responding as responding may increase the visibility of the negative review (known as the Streisand effect).

• Ask the reviewer to continue the conversation offline.

• If the reviewer is not a client or former client, state this fact in your response.

• Explain that professional obligations limit your ability to respond fully.

Be careful reviewing a competitor

One way lawyers have attempted to win the Online Review War is to review their competitors. Not surprisingly, this tactic has created issues for at least one lawyer.

During heated litigation, an Illinois lawyer is said to have launched a negative review campaign against opposing counsel. The attorney is alleged to have posed as former clients and posted multiple fake one-star reviews on the opposing counsel’s Google and Avvo profiles.

One allegedly fabricated review read, “We hired [lawyer’s name] by recommendation but clearly he waa [sic] to [sic] inexperienced, emotional and did Not [sic] care about the seriousness of the case. He allowed the case to drag for years w/o filing any motions& [sic] was constantly inappropriate with his comments. If you or your loved one’s life is hanging in the balance, Do Not Hire this man!! He will do a poor job & bail on you.” Illinois Disciplinary Commission Complaint at 19, In re AK, No. 2024PR00056 (filed).

While this case has not yet reached a conclusion, Illinois bar regulators have alleged that this lawyer violated Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. They have also alleged he violated Rule 4.4(a), which prohibits a lawyer from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass a third person.

The lesson is that RWA (reviewing while angry) or reviewing your competition at all is likely a bad idea.

Be careful self-reviewing

Speaking of bad ideas, reviewing yourself online could also violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The same Illinois lawyer we mentioned above is currently facing disciplinary action for allegedly writing fake self-reviews. The Illinois bar regulators claim they traced over 15 reviews to the lawyer’s IP address.

In those reviews, he allegedly posed as former clients on FindLaw and Avvo and praised his own work. One false review called him an “Amazing Attorney Doing God’s Work. That’s how I describe [the attorney] and his staff. He is an amazing attorney who won my case with ease and he has been a delight to work with. We are very grateful.” Id. at 8-9. For this conduct, the Illinois bar regulators are seeking a finding that the lawyer violated Rule 8.4(c).

Conclusion

There is very little you can do to respond to a negative review. However, if you must respond, always protect confidential information and avoid reviewing yourself or your competition.•

__________

James J. Bell is a partner at Hoover Hull Turner LLP. Adam Brookman is a law clerk at Hoover Hull Turner and a student at IU McKinney School of Law. Opinions expressed are those of the authors.