Professional Discipline and Responding to Online Criticism from Clients
Online reviews can be critical to an attorney or law firm’s business. Statistics show that 93% of clients use online reviews as one of the critical steps in choosing an attorney and 87% will not choose an attorney or law firm with low online ratings. Review sites such as Yelp, Google, and Avvo make it easy for clients to post a review sharing their opinion of their counsel’s legal services with other potential consumers of legal services.
Not all attorney-client relationships are conflict-free, which can result in a negative review by a disgruntled client. Inevitably, an attorney will want to defend him-or-herself from allegations lodged by the client, especially if they are downright false or misleading.
So, when can a lawyer respond to an online review and how much information can the lawyer share without violating client confidentiality, which extends beyond conclusion of the attorney’s work for the client? The Nevada Supreme Court addressed this issue in a recent case, In the Matter of Discipline of Robert Draskovich (2021). There, a well-regarded criminal defense attorney responded to an anonymous negative review that a former client posted on Avvo.com. The client, who did not identify himself, warned others not to hire Draskovich. The client alleged that his attorney gave false assurances, charged too much, failed to communicate to the client about his case, and lacked knowledge about the case.
The client’s anonymous review did not reveal details about his criminal case, other than he had been charged with a sex crime. In response, the attorney disclosed the client’s name, case number, dates of court appearances and client meetings, the judge overseeing the case, and specific details about admissions the client had made to police officers before retaining counsel.
In affirming the reprimand against the attorney, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the attorney’s disclosure went beyond what was permitted by Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. This rule permits an attorney to disclose confidential client information in the defense of a controversy between the lawyer and the client. The Court’s opinion indicates that if a lawyer decides to respond to an online review, disclosure of any client information must be (1) narrowly tailored, and, (2) proportionately measured to the issues raised in the client’s review. In other words, the information disclosed must be “essential or indispensable” to rebutting a client’s allegations. The attorney’s actions will be measured under an “objectively reasonably standard.” Because in Draskovich the attorney’s response went beyond this test (notably, a matter of first impression in Nevada), the Court affirmed the reprimand.
In the heat of the moment, it is easy to fire off a response to a negative online review in a desire to defend one’s reputation. The Draskovich opinion is a reminder for attorneys to carefully consider the test under NRPC 1.6 in what client information may be disclosed in response to an online review.