LinkedIn last week announced a “rethinking” of its endorsement feature, first launched in 2012. Starting with its mobile app, the service says it has “improved targeting” so people looking at your profile will see the endorsements for you that are most relevant to them. Coming on the heels of this development, a new Ohio ethics opinion reminds us that we should be monitoring endorsements and other kinds of testimonials to ensure they are within ethical bounds.

Avvo has a First Amendment right to use a lawyer’s publically-available information to generate advertising revenue for itself, the district court for the Northern District of Illinois held on September 12. The ruling means that Avvo can park ads for your competitors on the profile it creates for you — unless you pay Avvo to keep them off.

Since it debuted in the U.S. a couple weeks ago, Pokémon Go has become a nationwide phenomenon. If you’re like I was, you may need a primer in order to understand what the hoopla is about. The game was launched by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company for smartphones. It features the longtime videogame franchise that involves capturing and “training” phantasmagorical creatures called Pokémon. And yes, there’s an ethics issue for you to think about.

Microsoft’s plans to acquire LinkedIn for $26.2 billion was the talk of the tech world late last month. The combination of these behemoths is going to give Microsoft access to all LinkedIn’s data. Microsoft’s CEO has given some examples of the potential synergies that will result, like “getting a feed of potential experts from LinkedIn whenever Office notices you’re working on a relevant task.” But legal ethics issues loom, involving our duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6.

A cyber-alert issued earlier this month by the non-profit Center for Internet Security warns of a dangerous wave of malicious e-mails that are specifically targeting lawyers. The fake e-mails are calculated to get your adrenaline pumping and to get you to open them and click on a link — because they’re personalized, they look urgent, and they’re disguised as coming from your own state’s disciplinary body or bar association.

My spouse and I visited Chicago years ago, and confusedly started driving the wrong way down a one-way street. We were promptly pulled over by one of the Windy City’s finest. I gave him my best smile, and said, “Sorry, officer, we’re from out of town.” He grunted, “Don’t they have one-way streets where you come from?” But he didn’t give us a ticket. A recent disciplinary opinion out of Oklahoma, involving a tech-challenged bankruptcy lawyer, brings the story to mind.

A Florida appeals court has affirmed $350,000 in punitive damages awarded to a lawyer who claimed that a former client defamed her in on-line reviews. Some courts have turned back claims based on internet reviews. But in Blake v. Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A., the court said there was no free-speech shield for the former client’s false statements on various internet review sites.