Lawyer Censured For DWI Referral Internet Site

A Winston-Salem lawyer has been censured for running a “DWI specialist” web site that promised a statewide network of lawyers but referred all users to his own office.

The case is North Carolina State Bar v. Dummit, 99 DHC 3.

According to the consent order of discipline, Winston-Salem lawyer E. Clarke Dummit in October 1997 set up a web site “to assist the public in finding an attorney to handle driving while impaired cases.”

The site also promoted Dummit’s DWI book, entitled Friends Don’t Let Friends Plead Guilty.

According to the consent order, Dummit’s plan was to “create a series of affiliations or relationships with attorneys in other North Carolina counties and to create an Internet-based referral service in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

However, the Bar said the site gave visitors the false impression that it could help visitors locate qualified DWI attorneys across the state.

Winston-Salem lawyer Urs Gsteiger, who represented Dummit at the Bar hearing, said any ethics violation was unintentional.

“What Clarke was sanctioned for was an accidental thing,” Gsteiger said. “This boiled down to a misunderstanding between him and the web site manager. For instance, the use of the term ‘specialist’ was done by the person who put the site together, not Clarke.

“Clarke has an interest and expertise in the Internet, and believes it holds a lot of opportunity,” Gsteiger said. “But in the future, he’ll coordinate his efforts with the State Bar.”

Counties Map

Originally, Dummit’s site displayed a map of North Carolina’s 100 counties and instructed users to “Find a Lawyer in Your Area.”

The map page also contained this instruction: “Click on the name of the county that charged you to get the DWI specialist home page for that area.” The Bar does not recognize any specialists in DWI law.

Visitors who clicked on the Forsyth page were referred to Dummit’s law firm, including his telephone number and e-mail address. Visitors who clicked on many of the other 99 counties reached a “Try Again” page that stated: “You have selected a county that is not yet supported by NClawyer.com. Please call [Dummit’s law office number] for a personal referral.”

In the consent order, the Bar cited Dummit for a violation of Rule 7.1(a).

That rule states: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it … contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”

Dummit was also cited for improper use of the words “DWI specialist,” a violation of Rule 7.4(b). That rule states: “A lawyer may not communicate that the lawyer is a certified specialist or certified in a field of practice except as provided in this rule.”

Not Internet Problem

A 1996 ethics ruling, RPC 239, okayed lawyer advertising on the Internet, subject to the same ethical rules that apply to any lawyer advertising.

Under that ruling:

• The advertising cannot be false or misleading.
• To avoid confusion to the public, the web site must disclose where the lawyer’s office is located and where the lawyer is licensed to practice law.
• Lawyers not certified as specialists cannot imply or state that they are. However, they can indicate areas of concentration.

• Lawyers must keep a copy of all web advertisements for at least two years. “Compliance with Rule. 2.2(c) may be achieved by printing a hard copy of all screens on the web site as launched and subsequently printing hard copies of any material changes in the format or content of the web site,” the opinion states.

Tom Lunsford, the Bar’s executive director, said the latest disciplinary action was not really an Internet issue.

“The real problem is running a sham referral service that is not what it purports to be,” he said.

North Carolina has yet to tackle the broader ethical traps surrounding lawyers who advertise on the Internet.

According to the American Bar Association’s Commission on Advertising, these issues will ultimately have to be addressed by state bars:

• Is an attorney-client relationship formed when lawyers answer questions online for potential clients?
• Is an attorney committing the unauthorized practice of law when out-of-state inquiries are answered?
• Do lawyers’ online activities subject them to long arm statutes in other states?