One of the questions most often asked during my ethics presentations on social media is what to do about “those lying scum who write mean things about me on the internet.” You see, the flip side of the greatest self-promotional tool created since the Yellow Pages is that the same invisible waves that allow a lawyer to puff his carefully-crafted internet persona similarly allows those who don’t think as well of him as he does of himself to put their thoughts online as well.
This isn’t to say that detractors are right, but that there is no test given to people who want to buy computer keyboards. They can be nuts, angry or just haters. They can be adversaries or competitors who want to take you down a notch or twelve. They can also be clients who weren’t particularly thrilled with your representation. Unfair? Sometimes. Harmful? Sometimes. Fixable? Maybe, but that’s where the danger comes into play.
Macon, Georgia lawyer Margrett Skinner, practicing family law, was not pleased with some of the reviews she received from former clients. Given the nature of family law, much like criminal law, one might think that comes with the territory. It’s nasty business. But rather than shake it off, or respond in a way that explains the nature of a practice where bad outcomes happen despite best efforts, Skinner took a different approach and disclosed client confidences as part of her attempt to fight back and mend her reputation.
No. This is something you cannot do. Via the ABA Journal :
The Georgia Supreme Court has refused to approve a reprimand for a Georgia lawyer who admitted posting personal and confidential information about a client in response to the client’s negative online reviews.
The court remanded the ethics case against lawyer Margrett Skinner because the factual record was undeveloped. “Among other things, we note that the record does not reflect the nature of the disclosures (except that they concern personal and confidential information) or the actual or potential harm to the client as a result of the disclosures,” the court said in a March 18 opinion. The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct has a summary.
Skinner had admitted violation of a Georgia ethics rule that requires lawyers to maintain client confidences and sought a “review panel reprimand.” Because of the lack of information, the court said it was rejecting Skinner’s petition for the sanction, “the mildest form of public discipline authorized by the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
While some may wonder whether the opportunity to fight back when a client’s online review is decidedly negative is akin to a disciplinary complaint or malpractice suit, the answer thus far is a definitive no. The internet remains something of a mystery to most courts and disciplinary authorities, and the nature and impact of online reviews remain in their infancy. Yet, as painful as it may feel, as unfair as it may seem, it does not relieve the lawyer of the duty of confidentiality.
The internet is a double-edged sword. Just as lawyers can write things about themselves that might stretch the truth just a tad, or omit things that might dissuade a potential client from seeking their wise counsel, clients get to speak their mind as well. One of the truisms of life, and professional practice, is that not everyone is going to think you’re wonderful.
Whether they’re angry enough to wander the web to spread invective is another matter, but if so, that’s their right. They get to think poorly of you no matter how much time and effort you put into making yourself seem the next coming of Clarence Darrow.
Whether this is unfair, or just unpleasant, doesn’t really matter. The internet is replete with opportunities to provide “reviews” of services, lawyers included, and they’re not going away. On the bright side, savvy users realize that most reviews, from restaurants to baby diapers, must be taken with a grain of salt. Some are phony. Some are planted. Some are just plain nuts.
As was recently noted with book reviews, expressed by legal philosopher Brian Cuban, “People are going to think you suck. Get over it.” The same is true of your practice of law, whether you deserve the castigation or not. If you can’t take the anger and criticism, then maybe a safer occupation with less responsibility will be more to your liking, but the law is hard and things don’t always work out for the best. Suck it up.
On the other hand, bear in mind that as much as you may have a laundry list of really good excuses for not returning phone calls, not preparing well conceived and written documents, not appearing in court on time or prepared, not doing the research necessary to present your client’s position in the best possible light, or as has become sadly common, presenting yourself as qualified and experienced when you’re not, clients don’t care. They are not concerned with your issues and problems. They hire you to fix theirs.
Either way, when the word gets back to you that a client is less than thrilled with your services, you cannot react by smearing the client’s privileged communications across the internet. You can’t because it’s wrong. You can’t because you will be subject to discipline. And as the Georgia court responded to Margrett Skinner, it may not be sure just how harsh the discipline will be, but it’s not going to be the slap on the wrist she hoped.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone who tries to defend themselves on the ‘net also runs into the potential of invoking the frumious “The Streisand effect.”
“The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. The term is a modern expression of the older phenomenon that banning or censoring something often makes that item or information more desirable, and leads to its being actively sought out to a greater extent than it would have otherwise been.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The entry also contains a variety of other examples.
Really? There’s such a thing as the Streisand Effect? Next, maybe you can explain Dunning-Kruger?
I am not certain that the attorney is permitted to acknowledge that the lawyer-client relationship exists. While a divorce/family law case ordinarily creates a public record paper trail connect client and lawyer with an entry of appearance, the fact that information is both ascertainable from public record AND claimed to be true by the client may not relieve the attorney from the wholesale duty not to discuss the existence of a lawyer-client relationship. Even in “self-defense.” In some jurisdictions, not only client communications but “secrets” – what one learns from non-clients – is confidential.
I think the only safe thing to do after a negative review is either a) nothing, b) putting up a response affirming the constitutional right of free speech and press for the complainant and all other persons and c) posting a copy of the confidentiality ethics rule. Anything else is essentially a smack at Bar Counsel begging her or him to open a complaint.
Maybe this is too conservative a view but who wants to be the lab experiment on something like this?
I am the victim this article speaks of. I hired Margrett Skinner and left three honest reviews of her appalling service and attitude. I was accused by her of writing several reviews that I did not write. She has wronged and harmed many of her clients and I am not the only one she mentioned by name online. The GA State Bar was given all of the details, but for some reason did not disclose the nature of the confidential information to the court. She displayed my first and last name, where I worked, where I lived, that I had a boyfriend while I was seeking a divorce, and more. She did not tell one or two people about my personal business, she put it on the Internet for the world to see. She lied in her sworn statements to the GA State Bar. She falsified at least one of her own online reviews. A suspension is not enough.