Professional Liability Advocate

On April 3, 2016, the public learned that millions of client documents from the Panamanian law firm and corporate services provider Mossack Fonseca & Co. (MF) had made their way to an international organization, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and that the information would be used to publish potentially damaging stories. In addition, authorities across the globe, from Japan to Switzerland to the United States, are reviewing the documents and investigating potential tax implications, regulatory violations and criminal activity.

A recent Washington Post article examined the issue of patient privacy complaints after medical providers responded to negative Yelp® reviews about medical care. The issue of how a professional can (or should) respond to negative online reviews is not limited to physicians or medical facilities. While attorneys are not subject to HIPAA, they are all well aware that attorney-client communications are privileged and confidential and only the client can waive that privilege.

As part of my blog training, I was asked to review my social media presence in general and in particular my LinkedIn account. My profile, admittedly, had not been reviewed in some time, so I updated my bio and skills section.

This made me think about “puffing,” which I learned about in my Contracts class in law school. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is something we experience daily in sales transactions and advertising. Puffing is the exaggeration of the positives of a service or product or anything else someone is looking to sell. Any advertisement that includes superlatives – such as “greatest,” or “best” – or statements that are clearly not intended as factual representations are not generally actionable if you buy the “product” and find it to be lacking. Consumers dealing with a salesperson should expect some level of “puffing.”