Should Attorneys Use Google’s Local Service Ads?

Google’s Local Service Ads (LSA) have been a boon to numerous professions since they first debuted in 2015. They have helped service professionals in industries like home improvement, plumbing, auto repair, and more gain additional customers by promoting their services at the top of search pages. Recently, some lawyers have been using LSA to promote their practices, but ethics professionals are concerned this may not be a good idea. Here’s why.

How LSAs Work

According to Google, at any given time, when certain keywords are entered into Google’s search bar, three relevant providers appear at the top of the search results. If there are more than three in the searcher’s service area, the providers are rotated based on an algorithm that ensures all providers get adequate exposure. The service provider specifies their local area and if a searcher in that area searches for keywords associated with the provider’s profession, their ads are shown.

These local ads do not display the phone number that would connect a searcher directly to the service provider. Nor do the ads take the interested party directly to the attorney’s website, where they can find direct contact information. Instead, Google provides a phone number that routes the caller to a separate company that captures the leads. These leads are then forwarded to the service provider through an unsecured phone line. Currently, the only LSAs available to attorneys are for those in specific fields, including personal injury, real estate, estate planning, family law, criminal law, business law, contract law, and bankruptcy.

LSAs are “pay-per-lead,” so an attorney that uses an LSA would only pay for the ad’s placement if someone clicks on the ad and makes contact with the lawyer by either phone or text. This makes it an inexpensive advertising method, especially for smaller law offices that may not have an extensive marketing budget. That being said, LSAs may not be the marketing solution attorneys are looking for.

The Ethical Dilemma

The issue with GSAs for lawyers is that the call to the separate company that captures the leads from the GSAs is not secure and cannot guarantee the caller confidentiality. In fact, when a searcher is connected to this lead center, they are informed that the call is being recorded and that it may not be confidential. The attorney buying the ads is also required to authorize the search engine company to monitor and record their calls as a condition of their advertising agreement. They must sign an agreement that states the lawyer is required to “authorize Google, its affiliates, and their agents to access, monitor, and record telephone calls, text messages, live chat, and other communications” that are initiated through an LSA.

Since there is the expectation on the behalf of customers who call law firms that their conversations and information are confidential, attorneys who use GSAs are walking an ethical tightrope by not ensuring initial contact with a potential customer can be kept confidential. The attorney-client confidentiality clause has historically been broadly interpreted, applying to non-clients as well as clients. This means that even if someone just calls an attorney to ask a question, it can fall under the confidentiality mandate.

Both the caller and the attorney are notified that the call through LSAs is not confidential and Google acknowledges that lawyers will need to use their “best judgment on whether [they] choose to join our service knowing that the calls are recorded. All our legal advertisers are informed that each lead is coming from Google (and therefore recorded) with a whisper that says ‘call from Google. This call is recorded and may not be attorney-client privileged’.”

Marketers across the U.S. have been encouraging Lawyers to participate in LSAs, since it is one of the best ways to get local qualified leads. However, these marketers are glossing over the ethical dilemma that attorneys may face if they use LSAs to capture leads. Marketers are well aware that the LSA lead calls and texts are recorded and monitored, but they believe the “call recorded” notice that goes to the attorney and the potential client before the call is connected is sufficient to avoid lawsuits. But, legality and ethics are not the same thing.

Ramifications

Even though the GSA phone line lets the caller know that their conversation with the lawyer will be recorded and not confidential, it is still incumbent upon the attorney to make sure the customer has given informed consent about what may happen with the information they share during that call. Google is not clear on which third parties it may provide the call information to, so the caller could be incriminating themselves to law enforcement, immigration enforcement, or any number of other agencies that would normally not be privy to calls between a client and their attorney.

Most ethics experts agree that if an attorney receives an unsolicited email communication from a stranger looking for representation, the attorney-client privilege does not apply as long as the attorney has not published anything that could lead a “reasonable person” to believe they can share private information without first establishing a lawyer-client relationship. It is possible LSAs could be treated the same way.

Even taking the minimal basic information and calling the lead back on a private line can still be a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Client identity and contact information cannot be recorded without the client’s informed consent. While you may argue that the client gives informed consent by making the call, the law may not agree, especially since there is no way to put a disclaimer on an LSA.

Conclusion

Currently, several courts are deliberating on whether or not GSA-type advertising is even legal for attorneys to participate in. Until these decisions are finalized, you may not want to open yourself up to potential confidentiality breaches by paying for leads through Google. It’s not yet illegal to do it, but it does put ethics under the microscope, which is not the type of attention any attorney needs. For now, it may be best to avoid this marketing method until the legality is determined.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the management of EconoTimes