Legal & Ethical Handbook Introduction

This handbook has been prepared for the staff of the Law Office of Marcella A. Taylor. This handbook outlines the law and regulations, ethical guidelines, and case study examinations to provide a clear understanding of the expectations for digital communication as it relates to the firm.

As a Law Office operating in the state of Florida, the firm must adhere to the regulating rules of The Florida Bar. For this handbook we will focus on Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct as it details the lawyer's responsibilities to the client, legal system, and public.

With each client in our day-to-day interactions, it is vitally important that we maintain legal and ethical standards within our communications. We owe privacy and confidentiality to our clients and must always remain mindful.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this handbook, please contact your legal administrator for clarification,

Handbook Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Laws & Regulations

   1. First Amendment

   2. Landmark Court Cases

   3. Content & Messaging

   4. Best Legal Practices

3. Ethical Guidelines

   1. Professional Code of Ethics

   2. Common Themes

   3. Ethical Guidelines

   4. Best Ethical Practices

4. Case Study

   1. Existing Controversial Dilemma

   2. First Amendment

   3. Existing Communication Laws

   4. Precedents

   5. Best Legal Practices

   6. Existing Ethical Codes

   7. Best Ethical Practices

   8. Future Digital Communications

LAWS & REGULATIONS

Landmark Court Cases

In Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995).

The Florida Bar petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to amend their rules and further restrict the communication and direct solicitation of lawyers from making contact with personal injury victims within 30 days of their accident.

McHenry, representing Went For It, petitioned the court in an attempt to prove his first and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated through the restrictions put in place by the Florida Bar.

However, he was unsuccessful in proving these claims, with the ruling highlighting this case was protected through commercial free speech, with more restrictions and government input than one's own personal rights of free speech.

The Florida Bar was able to provide evidence that the rule protected the interest of society.

While in an earlier case it was argued and won that states could not limit an attorney's ability to make direct communications with clients, particularly notices of foreclosure assistance in the case Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988). The Florida Bar ruling simply narrowed the right afforded to Florida attorneys in the cases of those impacted by a catastrophic accident for a time period of 30 days.

Worth mentioning are the two cases of Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961), and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967).

In the earlier ruling of Cohen, revealed an attorney who self-represented himself in a proceeding and was disbarred for not releasing information that could be considered self-incriminating. In this case, it was decided that the attorney's license and duties to the court were set on a higher level than his personal rights.

Later, Attorney Spevack would regain his bar license after it was decided that in-fact attorneys are provided the right to not self incriminate, protected under their 5th amendment rights.

This brief examples show how quickly case law can change, and how an attorney's individual rights are not the same as their commercial rights.

First Amendment

What is important to consider here is the difference between person and commercial freedoms of speech.

While as an individual we afforded rights to say what we wish, so long as it does not warrant threat or harm to others. However, businesses are held to a higher standard for their speech.

When a business produces an advertisement or communication, they are responsible for any unlawful actions within that notice.

Recalling that our client's have their rights of attorney-client privilege, any speech that contains their private information therefore would not be free speech to you. And as your employer limit you from sharing such information without expressed permission.

What is important to consider is that we must maintain client confidentiality at all times, and remember that just because we know something does not mean it is our information to share.

Content & Messaging

Based upon the highlighted cases above:

Florida Personal Injury law firms and groups acting on behalf of attorneys should not solicit business from those who have been involved in an accident within the last 30-days. This would limit an attorney's ability to make direct contact with someone based upon public records. However, it would not preclude them from making digital, televised, or other means of advertisement that does not specifically target those within that 30-day time period.

Based upon the Florida Bar, Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct we must further understand that content and messaging should never include client sensitive information in a setting where not permissible. All protected information should only pass through approved means of communication, and stored in compliance with the ABA and Florida Bar as it relates to Florida attorneys.

Best Legal Practices

When handling client data, including correspondence with clients over digital methods, we should consider the following "best legal practices":

1. No client information shall be made available to non authorized parties, or through non-standard means of communication.

   1. If a client leaves a review, then our response must not include any private details regarding the client or their casework.

   2. Do not release client information over social media or other unauthorized online methods that breaches the confidentiality and trust expected from our firm.

2. Per Florida Bar Policy, we will not communicate or attempt to solicit business from any family or individual who has been involved in a catastrophic accident within the last 30-days. By our law office standard, it is never allowed to call a client to offer services for a matter they have not directly asked for our assistance. Therefore, under no circumstances should any person on behalf of the law office contact or offer representation to any person(s) who have been involved in an accident, regardless of the length of time since said incident.

3. Always use secure methods to communicate with clients, as to protect their privacy.

   1. Facebook messenger is not an approved method for sharing client protected information, any communication that comes from Facebook, Instagram, or otherwise, should immediately be transferred to secure methods such as CLIO or CORVUM.

4. Due to the sensitive nature of our practice, it is our request that no photos or videos are taken within the law firm, unless expressed approval has been provided to you.

   1. Client information is always lurking in the background, you never know whose information may be available by just zooming into the photo. As a precaution to the safety of our clients information, there is never a time where photos or files of client information should be saved to personal devices or shared through any non-approved method of saving files.

References

Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct

In Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9524077868218834965&q=first+amendment+applied+to+lawyers&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10781928571449440206&q=first+amendment+applied+to+lawyers&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

SPEVACK v. KLEIN, 385 U.S. 511 (1967). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11715058888276446303&q=spevack+v+klein&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

COHEN V. HURLEY, 366 U.S. 117 (1961).https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3124055573329033016&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&scilib=1&scioq=first+amendment+applied+to+lawyers