The first question customers evaluating our Cloud Preservation product ask is “Why do I need to archive”. First off, Rule 26 of the FRCP makes it clear a legal obligation exists for any party involved in a civil proceeding.
But further than that there are specific ethical considerations regarding the marketing of their services on the internet.
Quoting from the article “The Ethical Boundaries of Selling Legal Services in Cyberspace” published in the National Law Journal.
“Copies of advertising materials must be filed in several jurisdictions. A few states, notably Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Kentucky, require advertising to be screened prior to or concurrent with distribution of the material. Filing fees must accompany the review submissions and be refiled when there are changes. Some states with screening requirements have not yet decided whether to include internet materials. Texas, however, has concluded that home pages of Texas law firms must be submitted and failure to so do is itself a rule violation.”
The footnote citation is “Sterns & Murgatroyd v. Lundberg, IP 95-674C, (S.D. Ind.) May 1995.”
Interestingly, this article is from way back in 1996, when the subject at hand was websites. Facebook would not be founded for 8 more years, in 2004.
The ethical standards and evaluations will take time to catch up with the breakaway pace that these new technologies are emerging. What is clear however is there is no rational reason to believe that social media marketing will be treated differently than websites.
It does seem inevitable that any lawyer marketing on the internet will need to be able to have a copy of any materials they were making available on the internet, including communications made over third part social media platforms.