EDITED BY:
Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor
PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
PUBLICATION DATE: December 31, 2025
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 6, No. 12
FEATURE ARTICLE: The Ethics of Change
As the year 2026 begins, it is interesting to look back a century to 1926 and to compare how the practice of law has changed and how the ethics of practice have changed as well. In 1926, one of the great debates at the Bar was whether law was a business with all that implies. Many lawyers believed that law was a gentlemanly profession rather than a business, and that was one of the most important underlying ethical bases for the law. Today, 100 years later, few lawyers would attempt to argue that the practice of law is not a business. Most would say the business must be ethically conducted, and many would acknowledge having aspirations that go beyond making a profit, but nevertheless it would be hard to find any who would not admit that the modern practice of law requires businesses practices to remain economically viable.
. . .
NEW AUTHORITY: NYSBA Opinion 1286
On September 29, 2025, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) issued Opinion 1286, which may be of interest to many lawyers.
It began with an inquiry from a lawyer who had been working as an associate in a firm, then decided to go out on his own and open a solo practice specializing in immigration law. Setting up a new solo practice can be a difficult situation for an ex-associate, and the need to find clients is pressing under the circumstances. The lawyer decided to ask his former immigration clients whether they would be willing to write a review of his abilities on Google in the belief that this could generate new business. In addition, he decided he “would like to give a small gift (such as a gift card) to each former client who writes a Google review.”
The NYSBA advised that the lawyer’s proposal did not violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility as adopted in New York. The advice leaned upon an earlier NYSBA Opinion:
In N.Y. State 1052 (2015), the Committee concluded that a lawyer could ask current clients to rate his services on Avvo and could offer a $50 credit on their legal bills, provided that the “credit is not contingent on the content of the rating, the client is not coerced or compelled to rate the lawyer, and the ratings and reviews are done by the clients and not the lawyer.” N.Y. State 1052, ⁋14.
Furthermore, the NYSBA decided that requesting a Google review from an existing client did not violate the advertising rules:
In N.Y. State 1221 (2021), we concluded that a communication with an existing client for the purpose of offering legal services does not constitute either advertising or solicitation. The term “advertisement” is defined in Rule 1.0(a) as “any public or private communication made by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm about that lawyer or law firm’s services, the primary purpose of which is for the retention of the lawyer or law firm. It does not include communications to existing clients or other lawyers…Rule 7.3(a) itself expressly excludes former clients from the ban on in-person solicitation, stating: “A lawyer shall not engage in solicitation: (1) by in-person or telephone contact, or by real time or interactive computer-accessed communication unless the recipient is a close friend, relative, former client or existing client.” (Emphasis added.) The Committee wrote that Rule 1.0(a) has been interpreted to exclude communications to former clients. N.Y. State 1221, ⁋ 8, quoting Rule 7.1, Cmt. [7] (“Communications to former clients that are germane to the earlier representation are not considered to be advertising”).
Accordingly, the NYSBA gave the inquiring attorney the green light to proceed with his plan.
However, the opinion did put important limitations on its advice:
…a lawyer may ask a former immigration client to write a Google review without running afoul of the advertising or solicitation rules, provided the lawyer does not draft the Google review for the client or condition the gift on the content of the review.
The Opinion also devoted several paragraphs to potential confidentiality problems under Rule 1.6 and 1.9 which might arise, especially, given the possibility that the review might inadvertently reveal information dangerous for the former client.
Opinion 1286 is a good illustration of both the benefits and risks involved with the adoption of new technology for law practice. In this case, the lawyer did things right. Instead of simply going forward with his plan, he realized that it implicated several ethical issues and, therefore, made a request to the State Bar for advice which he duly received. Bravo!
ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: An Important Article on legal Ethics from St. Mary’s Journal of Legal Ethics & Malpractice
Margaret Raymond, Our AI, Ourselves: Illuminating the Human Fears Animating Early Regulatory Responses to the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law, 15 St. Mary’s J. on Legal Malpractice & Ethics 221 (2025).
Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol15/iss2/2
There is a great divide developing between those lawyers readily accepting the assistance of AI and those who totally reject using AI in law practice. This insightful article examines the role fear has played on one side of this professional divide. She writes:
“these early reactions will not be much use as a means of predicting what generative AI will look like in the legal sphere in the near and distant future. But they have much to tell us about the speakers, regulators, criticizers, and commentators themselves. They provide valuable insights into how the human element of the legal system actually works, and the fears that generative AI will alter that legal landscape, with profound effects on judges, lawyers, and clients.”
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Ill-Feeling and Personalities Between Advocates
Canon 17. Ill-Feeling and Personalities Between Advocates. Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants. Whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients, it should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanor toward each other or toward suitors in the cause. All personalities between counsel should be scrupulously avoided. In the trial of a cause it is indecent to allude to the personal history or the personal peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of counsel on the other side. Personal colloquies between counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling should also be carefully avoided.
— American Bar Association, Code of Professional Ethics (Adopted August 27, 1908).
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 6, No. 12
About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.
We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.
When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.
