Testimonials and Results must be confirmed by the viewer if you have them on your website. 85% of all lawyers are NOT in compliance.
Legal clients expect you to have a website, as well as an office, an email address, and a telephone.
And that assumption makes complying with the Florida Bar Association new website rules all the more important.
The Florida Bar Association rules now require lawyers and law firms to segregate their websites. Information, such as testimonials and references to past results, as well as other information that does not comply with Florida Bar Association Rule 4-7.2.
People expect you to have a website, an email address, and a telephone.
And that assumption makes complying with the website rules all the more important.
The new Florida Bar Association rule requires lawyers and law firms to segregate their websites. Information, such as testimonials and references to past results, as well as other information that does not comply with Florida Bar Association Rule 4-7.2.
To access that section, any viewer must take an affirmative action, such as clicking on a button after reading a disclaimer.
Those accessing such information, under this rule, would be told that the information has not been reviewed or approved by the Bar. If past results are mentioned, the site must say that each case is different and those provided may not be representative of results obtained by the lawyers.
If testimonials are used, the site must say those cases may be different from the client’s, whether testimonials from all clients are provided, and that the testimonials may not be representative of all clients’ experiences with the lawyer.
He estimated when the Supreme Court issued its initial ruling last year on website rules, probably 85 percent of lawyer and law firm websites were not in compliance. Since then, some law firms have updated their sites, but many are unaware of the pending rules or are waiting until the court takes final action.
“There’s not supposed to be anything on your website that talks about past performance or something that could be construed as a judgment, as opposed to factual,” Shinkle said.
His advice: “It’s a good rule of thumb for the majority of law firms to connect with somebody who does know two things — Florida Bar rules to make sure the website in compliance, and the Internet and what the Internet is looking for.
“Everything has become very complex for a solo practitioner to understand all of the marketing rules and be able to practice law.”
As for bringing a website into compliance, Shinkle said, “Testimonials and past results need to be removed from the website. There is a proposal on putting those behind a disclaimer and what we’ve done is put a popup window where someone would click, where someone would have to react and acknowledge those things. If they do not, it returns them to what they were reading. If they do acknowledge, they would be allowed to read the additional information.
“The majority of firms have somebody that they are working with in some capacity [on Internet issues],” Shinkle said.
He said “There is not a day that goes by that I don’t find a site not in compliance. There are a lot of firms out there who have not addressed this at all.”
And, Shinkle and Weinstein said, websites are important for law firms.
“Over 85 percent of law firms now have websites,” Weinstein said. “A lot feel that any site will do. But there’s a science to the website. Some of the top lawyers are overlooked because they’re ignoring advertising and marketing.”
Shinkle said the Internet is now a primary way for clients to find lawyers. They look for reinforcing information on an attorney they have been referred to or heard about. Potential clients also search for a lawyer with skills matching their needs.
In the latter instance, a website should be designed so that search engines are likely to find the attorney and list him or her high on the list of links. That, Shinkle said, can be a daunting task on its own, since search engine companies are continually refining their services.
“Marketing is changing at warp speed,” he said. “Google made 550 changes last year to its algorithm on who’s going to show up on its search results.”
Website rules have been a difficult issue for the Bar and the Board of Governors. The Bar, after an extensive study of advertising rules in 2004-05, took an extra year to review the intricacies surrounding law firm websites. The board ultimately recommended to the court that the home pages of attorney sites be subject to all the substantive advertising rules, and that the remainder of lawyer websites be subject to the substantive advertising rules with three exceptions: prohibitions against statements characterizing the quality of legal services, past results, and testimonials. In the latter two instances, the Bar recommended disclaimers. Websites would remain exempt from the filing requirement.
The court rejected that approach last November, ruling that websites are subject to the general advertising rules contained in Rule 4-7.2, which bans lawyers from using testimonials, referring to past results, or characterizing the quality of their legal services — all commonly done on law firm websites.
The Board of Governors, noting the short time between the issuance of the opinion and the January 1, 2010, effective date, first asked the court to delay the effective date until July 1, 2010, and the court agreed.
The Bar then asked the Standing Committee on Advertising to provide guidance for Bar members to comply with the rules.
The committee responded by suggesting a bifurcation of attorney websites. Those sections that contain testimonials, refer to past results, characterize the quality of legal services, or otherwise don’t comply with Rule 4-7.2, would not be generally accessible to random web-surfers. Access would require the viewer to take another affirmative step after viewing a disclaimer.
The Supreme Court approved of those suggestions but said they should be included in the advertising rules rather than being just guidelines.
It will cost the typical law firm $300 to $500 to comply with advertising rules on websites now pending at the Florida Supreme Court, according to two website experts.
Mark Weinstock, senior regional director, and John Shinkle, Internet marketing consultant with Martindale Hubbell, presented a seminar on complying with the proposed website rules and Internet marketing at the Bar’s Annual Convention. They recently spoke with the Bar News on those topics.
Shinkle said it’s hard to overestimate the importance of a website for attorneys.
“You’re probably looking at about two hours of computer time that would be $150 an hour,” Shinkle said of the time necessary to bring a website in compliance.
“Probably $300 to $500 should be able to fix that part of it for most firms.
“If somebody has animation, has scrolling, is linking in and has feeds, has a lot of internal links, then it’s going to be a lot more time and expertise and more expense.”
