|
By administrator | April 30, 2009
Examinee, who claims to
be Denmark’s largest chain of independent law firms, has a strong
online presence. However, our extensive review of the site has revealed
a number of faults, most of which require urgent attention. Some of
these problems arguably rise to the level of being unethical, unlawful,
and unprofessional.
Examinee’s disclaimer notwithstanding, visitors must be able to rely
upon the accuracy of all information posted on its website, or the site
loses its credibility as a whole. For the reasons explained in this
Opinion, the problem is neither trivial nor cosmetic; the errors
identified undermine the credibility of Examinee’s legal content and
its member firms.
Examinee needs to make a consistent good-faith effort to avoid
publishing any incorrect, insufficient, or misleading information on
its website, including - I stress - the individual websites of all of
its member firms. It needs to put into place effective quality control
mechanisms, including continuous monitoring and strict enforcement to
quickly correct any errors or disinformation on its member firm
websites. Judged by our findings it has failed to do so.
Last but not least, Examinee has a duty to listen and respond to any
legitimate criticism. The concerns raised in this Opinion were recently
brought to Examinee’s attention in a detailed, written form. Its
administrative offices and one of its member firms received an
executive summary of our Website Quality Report. When the member firm
requested that we refrain from publishing the report, I urged them to
consider acquiring the report. Having been rebuffed, I took the unusual
step of sending a free, redacted version of the entire report to
Examinee’s administrative offices and the member firm in question.
Regrettably, Examinee has written that neither it nor any of its
member firms have any use for an analysis of its website, which remains
under construction. Examinee has specifically instructed us to refrain
from contacting the secretariat or any of its member firms again in
this matter. Thus, the present Opinion has become a necessity because
the concerns we have identified should not be left unresolved.
(1) Legal content, timeliness
Visitors to Examinee’s website need to be able to rely upon the
accuracy of its legal content, of which the timeliness plays an
important part. However, throughout the site - i.e. affecting articles
written by lawyers at all member firms - article dates are
automatically updated, falsely conveying the impression that they are
up-to-date. This could lead to problems for a person who is mislead
into relying upon the information being current when in fact the
material may be outdated. Thus it is claimed that Examinee is willfully
deceiving its visitors, in clear violation of its own stated policy to
provide current and accurate information.
The practice is also unfair to colleagues at other firms who
struggle with providing up-to-date legal content on their websites. As
any lawyer would know, doing so is time consuming, and the amount of
recent legal articles a lawyer can provide may be a significant
competitive factor. Thus it is claimed that Examinee is engaging in
anti-competitive conduct.
We are concerned that if this conduct is allowed to continue, it
could well spread to other firms for obvious competitive reasons. Were
this to happen, it could tarnish the reputation not only of the firms
themselves but of the legal community as a whole, once clients and
visitors come to realize that they have been purposefully misled by
attorneys.
(2) Legal facts
Our examination of over 20 Danish law firms and many law firms in
other countries has shown that firms are consistent in making a clear
distinction between (A) licensed attorneys versus legal associates,
paralegals and the like, and (B) partners/owners versus employees.
Examinee lives up to neither of these standards.
(2A) Lawyers versus associates
It is a violation of Danish law and professional standards for
anyone who is not a licensed attorney to use the title “advokat” or
such similar titles for business purposes. It is a violation of these
clear rules when one of Examinee’s member firms claims on its website
that it employs six lawyers/six experienced lawyers when in fact it
only employs five licensed attorneys plus one legal associate. By
allowing this practice on at least one of its member sites, Examinee is
engaging in unethical, unlawful, and unprofessional conduct.
(2B) Partners versus independents/employees
It constitutes an unfair marketing practice when one of Examinee’s
member firms states on its website that it has six partners although at
least one and probably several more of its jurists are not partners
within a conventional legal and economical definition. The distinction
is not merely a matter of choice of words; it reflects the firm’s size
from an economical and legal point of view in informing clients how
many lawyers there are to shoulder the financial burden and bear any
liabilities. Thus, by making itself appear bigger than it actually is,
Examinee’s member firm misleads prospective clients about a material
fact.
Examinee’s deliberate blurring of the traditional definition of what
constitutes a partner in a law firm is also a breach of professional
etiquette. We are concerned that were this practice allowed to continue
uninterrupted, it might well spread throughout the legal community,
which would come at the expense of the lawyers who have indeed earned
the right to call themselves a partner. The deterioration of said
standards, which have served the legal community well for several
generations, would hurt both clients and the legal community as a whole.
|
