Every Case Is Like a Snowflake

Commentary: This article presents the author’s views and arguments. It is not advice about a particular case.

When TikTok exploded, I thought I saw my future. I would become an internet lawyer, build a social media audience, and make my fortune giving legal advice online.

I understood the appeal. A lawyer looks into a camera, describes a familiar problem, and tells you what to do. The audience gets an answer. The lawyer gets attention. Some of those viewers become clients.

But the more I watched social media lawyers and listened to guidance from the legal profession, the more my opinion changed.

I reached a different conclusion: lawyers should not give people advice about their particular legal problems without a consultation, and people should not treat online legal content as a substitute for one.

Every case is like a snowflake: no two are exactly alike.

Two situations may look identical at first glance, but differences in the facts, evidence, jurisdiction, and people involved can require different advice. A detail the viewer never mentions—or the lawyer never asks about—may change the answer entirely.

The lawyer in the video has never asked you a question

One example I hear repeatedly is: “If you get pulled over, here’s what you should do.”

That sounds useful. It is direct, easy to remember, and delivered by someone who appears to know what they are talking about.

But what happened before the stop? What is the officer asking you to do? Are you the driver or a passenger? Where are you? What has already been said or done?

A lawyer can explain general rights and legal principles. The problem begins when that explanation becomes a universal instruction for handling circumstances the lawyer has never investigated.

The viewer supplies the missing connection: That sounds like my situation, so that must be what I should do.

But the lawyer never asked.

The same problem arises with contracts, wills, business disputes, and real estate transactions. You hear an answer to a question that resembles yours. You may even hear an accurate explanation of the law. That does not establish that the recommended action fits your circumstances.

A contract provision omitted from your summary may change your rights. How property is titled may change what your will accomplishes. The timing of a payment or a conversation may change the analysis of a business dispute.

Those details emerge through questions, documents, and investigation. They rarely fit neatly into a short video.

The legal profession recognizes the problem

Published bar guidance reflects this concern.

The Florida Bar’s Best Practices for Professional Electronic Communication cautions against off-the-cuff advice through social media, particularly responses to specific online questions, because those exchanges can unintentionally create a lawyer-client relationship.

The New York State Bar Association’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section draws a similar distinction in its Social Media Ethics Guidelines. It permits general answers to legal questions while cautioning against specific advice through social media because of the potential for unintended attorney-client relationships and confidentiality problems. These are section guidelines, rather than binding rules governing every online exchange.

The State Bar of Arizona addressed the issue in Ethics Opinion 97-04, issued in 1997. It advises against answering fact-specific questions from members of the public in internet discussion groups because of conflicts and confidentiality concerns, while distinguishing general discussion of legal principles.

These concerns go beyond whether an answer sounds correct. An informal exchange can create expectations and professional obligations that the lawyer did not intend.

A consultation provides an opportunity to identify the people involved, ask relevant questions, review documents, and determine what assistance the lawyer can appropriately provide.

That consultation can take place online. Florida recognizes internet-based legal services subject to ordinary professional duties. The medium does not eliminate the work.

Practicing law requires judgment

Knowing a legal rule is part of practicing law. Applying it requires considerably more.

What facts can we prove? Which documents matter? What does the other side know? What deadlines are approaching? What would a favorable result actually accomplish?

And what does the client want?

A person may have a legally supportable claim and still be better served by negotiation. Another may need immediate action because waiting could make an eventual judgment practically worthless. A business owner may care more about stopping ongoing harm than recovering money months or years later.

The practice of law is an art requiring creative thinking, judgment, and strategy. A lawyer must assess the available paths and help the client choose among them.

“Can I sue?” is a different question from “Should I sue?” Both are different from “What should I do first?”

Even when two clients face similar legal problems, their priorities may require different approaches. One wants to preserve a relationship. Another needs to end it. One can afford prolonged litigation. Another needs a practical resolution now.

A short video can introduce the legal issue. It cannot make those decisions for everyone watching.

Local knowledge matters

Local knowledge can shape the advice.

A lawyer familiar with the jurisdiction may understand the court’s procedures, available programs, scheduling practices, and how prosecutors or judges exercise legally permitted discretion.

Similar conduct in different states may be governed by different statutes and sentencing ranges. Within a jurisdiction, legally relevant differences can also affect the outcome.

In civil cases, familiarity with local procedures can influence when to file, how to prepare, and which options to pursue.

An online audience may span fifty states. The lawyer may be explaining the law of one state while the viewer assumes it applies in another. Even when the jurisdiction matches, the viewer’s circumstances may not.

Where your case is heard can change the strategy.

Use the internet to prepare for a consultation

Legal information online can be valuable. It can introduce unfamiliar concepts, help people recognize potential problems, and give them better questions to ask.

But confidence, popularity, and a large audience do not establish that someone has given you the right advice.

Before acting, ask yourself: Has this lawyer asked about my circumstances? Reviewed the relevant documents? Identified the applicable jurisdiction? Discussed the risks and alternatives? Agreed to advise me?

If the answer is no, you have heard information that may be useful. You have not received an assessment of your case.

Bring the video, article, or question to a consultation. Ask whether it applies to you and what facts might change the answer.

I still believe lawyers have something worthwhile to contribute online. We can explain, discuss, and help people understand the legal system.

But I no longer believe that a camera and a confident answer can replace the work of understanding a client’s problem.

Every case is like a snowflake. The detail that makes yours different may be the detail that changes everything.

Sources

1. The Florida Bar: Best Practices for Professional Electronic Communication, particularly “Creating Inadvertent Relationships” and “Electronic Practice.”
2. New York State Bar Association, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section: Social Media Ethics Guidelines (2019), Guideline 3.A, printed page 14.
3. State Bar of Arizona: Ethics Opinion 97-04 (1997), question 6. The opinion is reproduced near the end of this federal-court-hosted collection, beginning on PDF page 123.