8
Finally, economic conditions in the legal world and technological developments weigh
against interpreting the Rules to create obstacles to the use of VLOs as long as the interests of
clients, the courts, and the legal system are protected. Economic conditions and technological
advances justify giving lawyers flexibility. Online research eliminates the need for a physical
library. By using an Internet connection, a laptop computer, a mobile phone, and other devices, a
lawyer can communicate easily with colleagues, clients, and adversaries from any location, at
any time. An interpretation of the Rules should ideally accommodate these technological
developments.
II. Is a New York Lawyer Permitted to Use the Street Address of a VLO on Letterhead,
Business Cards and the Law Firm Website?
A related question is whether the lawyer may use the VLO address on her letterhead,
business cards and law firm website. As noted above, NYSBA Ethics Op. 964 concluded that
business cards and letterhead do not need to list a physical street address, unless they are used for
advertising purposes. Even when business cards and letterhead are not used for advertising
purposes, however, they must not be deceptive or misleading.
As with all attorney
communications, any information contained on an attorney’s website, letterhead and business
cards must be truthful.
As discussed above, in our view the use of a VLO address is not inherently misleading.
Accordingly, we conclude that a lawyer may use a VLO address on letterhead and business
cards, so long as the use is not misleading under the circumstances. The same conclusion applies
to the law firm website.
III. Additional Ethical Considerations When Using a VLO
Although we believe that the use of VLOs is permissible in appropriate circumstances,
we recognize that they carry with them certain challenges that may not be present in a
traditional law firm office. Attorneys who elect to use VLOs should be mindful of these
challenges and should not allow them to become obstacles to fulfilling their ethical obligations.
We believe that attorneys should pay particular attention to the following ethical concerns when
using a VLO.
See generally Jordana Hausman, Who’s Afraid of the Virtual Lawyers? The Role of Legal Ethics in the Growth
and Regulation of Virtual Law Offices, 25 Geo. J. Legal Eth. 575 (Summer 2012).
Rule 8.4(c) (providing that a “lawyer or law firm shall not . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation”).
Other ethics opinions from outside New York State highlight the broad range of ethics issues that may be raised
by the use of VLOs and other nontraditional office arrangements. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Bar Committee on Legal
Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 2010-200 (“Pa. Ethics Op. 2010-200”) (applying the
following rules to Pennsylvania lawyers who maintain virtual law offices: Pa. Rules 1.4 (Communication), 1.14
(Clients with Diminished Capacity), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.18 (Duties to Prospective Clients), 5.1
(Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers), 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s
Services), 7.2 (Advertising) and 7.5 (Firm Names and Letterheads)); California State Bar Standing Committee on
Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion 2012-184 (“Cal. Ethics Op. 2012-184”), 2012 WL
3182985 (applying the following California rules to VLOs: Cal. Rules 1-100, 1-300 (unauthorized practice of law),
3-100 (Confidentiality), 3-110 (Competence), 3-310 (Conflicts), and 3-500 (Communication)); North Carolina State