The First Panel of the Ethics and Disciplinary Court defined that lawyers are prohibited from speaking frequently about legal topics in media outlets, even if they are representatives of commissions.
The understanding, established in October, is contained in a menu approved by the board in response to a question regarding the subject: whether it would be an ethical violation for the same lawyer, who is a member of an entity committee, to be repeatedly appointed to participate on a radio program and answer questions from citizens.
“Lawyers are prohibited from regularly answering queries on legal matters in the media, even if they do so as a member of the OAB committee”, says the menu approved by the Ethics Court.
The conclusion was that the practice “will represent to others who did not have the same opportunity unreasonable personal promotion, resulting in unfair competition, undue capture of causes and clients, tarnishing current ethical and statutory precepts”.
According to how the menu responded to a query about radio, the answer is also restricted to the means of communication. Furthermore, as it was approved by the Ethics Court of the São Paulo section, the definition is limited to São Paulo.
The report’s rapporteur, Cláudio Bini, considered that the problem is not necessarily that the lawyer frequently grants interviews, but rather that the lawyer obeys ethical precepts regarding professional secrecy, commercialization of the profession and undue acquisition of clientele.
It says that the objectives must be illustrative, educational and instructive, without the purpose of personal or professional promotion, and that legal consultations must be avoided from becoming generalized, as well as pronouncements on the work methods used by colleagues.
“If the lawyer is so perceptive that he manages to avoid violating any of the ethical precepts mentioned in his statements, there will be no problem. However, he will hardly be able, frequently or not, to broadcast on the radio and respond to questions live or not. , without offending ethical principles, unless this occurs on a specific basis”, he concludes.
Bini states that he understands that, yes, there is an ethical violation if the same lawyer is appointed repeatedly, even as a member of a commission, to answer citizens’ questions during an interview.
When questioned, the Court of Ethics and Discipline says that the menu strictly follows the Statute of Advocacy and the Federal Council as well as the entity’s Code of Ethics and Discipline. He also said that these standards are responsible for the closures, not the court.
The Ethics and Discipline Court is charged with providing guidance and advice relating to professional ethics. He is also responsible for conducting and judging disciplinary proceedings. The First Class is dedicated to answering legal queries and questions.
“The court understands that the topic of legal marketing needs to move forward and must be discussed, as well as, eventually, the rules that guide it should be updated.”
