What Lawyers Need to Understand About Online Reviews, Ethics, and Real-World Risk
Bad reviews happen. Sometimes fairly. Sometimes unfairly. Sometimes from people who were never your clients at all.
What gets lawyers into ethical trouble is not usually the review. It is the response.
I see the same pattern repeatedly. A lawyer feels misrepresented or attacked. The instinct is to defend, explain, or correct the record. That instinct is human. It is also, unfortunately, risky.
This post is about why that is, what the ethical rules actually say, and what lawyers should do instead.
Reviews Are Not Optional
Potential clients use online reviews to make hiring decisions. They read them. They weigh negative ones. They look closely at how businesses respond.
For many people, online reviews now carry as much weight as personal recommendations. This is not a marketing trend. It is how people evaluate services.
For lawyers, that reality is complicated by ethics rules that do not apply to most other businesses. You cannot approach online reputation the way a restaurant or contractor can. The constraints are real and they matter.
You May Already Have Reviews
One of the first questions I ask in my seminars is whether lawyers know if they already have reviews online. Many are not sure.
Most review platforms allow the public to create listings and post reviews whether you have claimed your profile or not. That includes Google, Yelp, Avvo, Martindale, LawyerRatingz, Facebook, and many others. You can have an online reputation long before you go looking for it.
Failing to claim your profiles does not prevent reviews. It simply means you have less control over how you are presented on the web.
For Lawyers, This Is an Ethics Issue
Most states now explicitly include competence with technology in their rules of professional conduct. That concept covers how lawyers interact with online platforms, including review sites.
Confidentiality rules are broad. They apply to information relating to representation, not just secrets or privileged communications. That duty does not disappear because someone criticizes you online.
If you ask employees or retain a marketing company to handle reviews on your behalf, you are still ethically responsible for what is said. Delegation does not remove accountability.
This is where many well-intentioned lawyers misstep. They are thinking like business owners. The rules require them to think like lawyers.
Pennsylvania Sidebar
Pennsylvania Lawyers: A Specific Note
If you practice in Pennsylvania, this is not abstract.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Opinion 2014-100 squarely addresses whether a lawyer may publicly respond to a client’s adverse comments on the internet. The opinion concludes that a lawyer’s duty to keep confidential all information relating to the representation of a client constrains the lawyer, even when the client is ungrateful or unfair.
In plain terms, Pennsylvania takes a very conservative view. A lawyer cannot reveal client confidential information in response to a negative review without the client’s informed consent.
The opinion also cautions that even general statements may disclose that a person was a client, which itself can be confidential.
If you practice in Pennsylvania, assume that public responses to client reviews are heavily constrained. When in doubt, do not respond online. Consider consulting ethics counsel before engaging.
Bad Review, Bad Response, Bad Idea
Here is the trap.
A lawyer receives a negative review. The lawyer believes the reviewer is wrong, misleading, or unfair. The instinct is to defend, explain, or set the record straight.
That instinct is understandable. It is also where problems start.
The Rules of Professional Conduct restrict how a lawyer may respond to a client’s negative online comments. The confidentiality rule allows disclosure in limited circumstances to establish a claim or defense in a controversy or proceeding. Most ethics authorities agree that an online review does not qualify. (Pennsylvania Bar Association Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 2014-100, Lawyer’s Response to Client’s Negative Online Review.)
In practical terms, this means that a negative Google or Yelp review does not give you permission to reveal client information in response. Even if the review is unfair. Even if it leaves out important facts. Even if it makes you angry.
Bar associations and disciplinary authorities have been clear on this point. Providing confidential information in response to a review is risky and often impermissible.
There is also a practical reality. Online arguments rarely end well. They tend to draw more attention to the review, push it higher in search results, and invite additional commentary. What feels like self-defense can quickly become amplification.
This Is Not Theoretical
Lawyers have been disciplined for responding to reviews by revealing client information. In one well-known case, an attorney responded to an Avvo review by describing the client’s conduct and circumstances in detail. The disciplinary authorities found that she revealed confidential information, used means intended to embarrass the client, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Other lawyers have been suspended for blogging or posting online about client matters in ways that allowed the clients to be identified using public information.
These cases usually begin the same way. The lawyer feels wronged. The lawyer believes the truth should be told. The lawyer believes the review justifies a response. And then the lawyer learns that the rules do not agree.
The ABA Is Clear
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed this directly in Formal Opinion 496.
Lawyers who choose to respond online must not disclose information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of confidential information. One permissible response is to indicate that professional considerations preclude a response.
In other words, while it is acceptable to say that ethical obligations limit what you can say. It is not acceptable to explain the client’s behavior, disclose details of the representation, or correct the record in a way that reveals confidential information.
Some opinions allow very limited, restrained responses that do not disclose confidential information and do not injure the former client. Many caution that even general disclaimers can reveal that the lawyer was involved in the events described, which can itself disclose confidential information.
Often, the safest option is not to respond at all, depending on whether you believe you can write a response that is unlikely to engender a lot of back and forth.
What About Non-Clients and Fake Reviews
Not every negative review is written by a client. Sometimes the reviewer is an opposing party, a family member, or someone who never had a professional relationship with you.
If the person is not a client or former client, you may be able to state that fact. Even then, caution is required. If the commentary relates to an actual representation, you still cannot disclose information about that matter without informed consent.
If the review is false, defamatory, or posted by someone pretending to be a client, you can ask the platform to remove it. Many sites have dispute processes. Success is not guaranteed, but this is often a better first step than engaging publicly.
Suing Over Reviews: Think Carefully
Some lawyers consider suing over defamatory reviews. In rare cases, firms have been successful. There are examples where verdicts were obtained and reviews were removed.
There are also many examples where lawsuits triggered significant negative publicity, additional reviews, media coverage, and reputational damage far beyond the original post.
Before suing, ask yourself:
- How many people will actually see the review.
- Will a lawsuit cause more people to notice it.
- Do you already have positive reviews that outweigh it.
- What are you really trying to accomplish.
Also remember that once you initiate legal action, different rules may apply. You may be permitted to disclose client information necessary to pursue or defend a claim. That does not mean it is strategically wise to do so.
What Lawyers Can Do Instead
There are options that do not involve public battles.
You can invite the reviewer to contact you privately. You can state, briefly and professionally, that ethical obligations limit your ability to respond in detail. You can focus on general statements about your commitment to client service without referencing the specific matter.
For example:
We are sorry that the reviewer was not satisfied. Unfortunately, professional obligations limit what we can say in this forum. We strive to provide high-quality representation to every client and welcome the opportunity to discuss concerns directly.
This kind of response is restrained, proportionate, and focused on future readers as much as the original poster.
If the review violates the platform’s terms of service, use the site’s removal process. Google, Yelp, and Avvo all have mechanisms for disputing reviews. They are not perfect, but they are often worth trying.
Preparation Matters
Do not wait until a bad review appears to think about this.
Claim your profiles. Complete them fully. Monitor them. Set up alerts for your name and your firm’s name. Seek reviews from happy clients in an ethically appropriate manner. Do not offer anything in exchange. Make sure any marketing vendor you use understands attorney ethics obligations.
A strong, accurate online presence makes a single negative review far less significant.
The Bigger Point
Online reputation is not just about image. For lawyers, it is tied directly to confidentiality, professionalism, and public trust.
A bad review is frustrating. A bad response can be far worse.
Before you reply, pause. Consider the rules. Consider the long view. Remember that you are writing not just for the reviewer, but for every potential client who will read what you say.
And remember, if you get a bad review, writing a bad response is a very bad idea.