Now that the deadline for the ABA's call for legal marketing ethics comments has come and gone, we have had the opportunity to see many perspectives on this important issue. We have maintained that the Constitution requires that, "Even when advertising communicates only an incomplete version of the relevant facts, the First Amendment presumes that some accurate information is better than no information at all."

I recently had the opportunity to read the comment submitted by Hellerman Baretz Communications LLC. I found their comment to be particularly insightful on this issue, which in summary states:

(a) content triggers ethics restrictions not channel (e.g., telephone, fax, Skype, email, Facebook, etc.); (b) existing rules, therefore, already cover the "new" online communication tools; but (c) by issuing Comments to its existing rules, the ABA can clarify that the mere act of communicating online does not trigger any special or enhanced restrictions and thereby encourage fearful lawyers to use the tools.

To me, this comment really strikes at the core of the issue. Regulations have always been designed to regulate the content of communications and not the method through which they are communicated. While, on the one hand, this may seem like an overly simplified concept, it is all to often overlooked.

While there is no doubt that legal professionals need to make conscientious decisions about communicating in compliance with the ethics rules, they should not be made to feel terrified about using new social media and networking technologies.

Thanks to John Hellerman for bringing this comment to my attention.