Does a Mississippi law firm have to submit its website to the Bar before using it, and does pointing readers to the site count as solicitation?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed several questions about a law firm's website under the lawyer-advertising rules, framed against the Supreme Court of Mississippi's 2004 amendments to Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5. The first question was whether a firm website must be submitted to the Office of General Counsel under Rule 7.5(a) or is exempt under Rule 7.5(b)(8).

The opinion explains that Rule 7.2(a) defines an advertisement as "an active quest for clients involving a public or non-public communication" and that the comment expressly includes computer-accessed communications such as home pages and World Wide Web sites. So a website can be an advertisement. But Rule 7.5(b)(8) exempts "Internet Web pages viewed via a Web browser, in a search initiated by a person without solicitation" from the pre-dissemination submission requirement. The opinion concludes that, while a firm website may be an advertisement, it is not mandatory that it be submitted to the Office of General Counsel.

On the second and third questions, the opinion concludes that putting "for more information please visit www.lawfirmname.com" in written materials, or providing the web address as part of general firm information (alongside street address and telephone number), does not negate the 7.5(b)(8) exemption and is not a solicitation: in each case the address is a passive additional route to information, not an "active quest for clients." It points to Rule 7.2(f), under which a firm's name, lawyer listing, office address, and telephone numbers are presumed not to violate Rule 7.1, and reads "office address" to include the firm's internet address. Finally, on Rule 7.6, the opinion concludes the disclaimer language required by Rules 7.2(c) and (d), 7.4(a), and 7.6(a) need not appear on every page; a general disclaimer reachable by an easily located icon or link on the main page satisfies the requirement.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Mississippi advertising rules as amended effective October 1, 2004, a firm website need not be submitted to the Office of General Counsel before use when it falls within the Rule 7.5(b)(8) exemption, and that listing the firm's web address in other materials is a passive reference rather than a solicitation. The opinion adds a caveat: a website may still contain specific advertisements that are not within the 7.5(b)(8) exemption and may require submission under Rule 7.5, and the opinion does not displace a lawyer's ability to request an advisory opinion on a contemplated advertisement under Rule 7.5(d).

Common questions

Q: Does a Mississippi law firm have to submit its website to the Bar before launching it?

A: Not if the site falls within Rule 7.5(b)(8). The opinion concludes that a website "viewed via a Web browser, in a search initiated by a person without solicitation" is exempt from the pre-dissemination submission requirement, even though it is an advertisement.

Q: Can I put my firm's web address in a brochure or letter?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes that a phrase like "for more information please visit www.lawfirmname.com" is passive and does not negate the exemption or amount to solicitation; the address is treated as an additional source of information, like the office street address and phone number.

Q: Do the required advertising disclaimers have to appear on every page of the website?

A: No. The opinion concludes the disclaimers required by Rules 7.2(c) and (d), 7.4(a), and 7.6(a) can be satisfied through a general disclaimer reachable by an icon or link that is easily located on the firm's main page, rather than repeated on every page or every attorney biography.

Q: Is everything on a firm website automatically exempt from submission?

A: No. The opinion's caveat states that a site may contain web pages or other information that are advertisements not within the 7.5(b)(8) exemption, and those may require submission to the Office of General Counsel under Rule 7.5.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the Mississippi advertising rules as amended effective October 1, 2004: Rule 7.2 (definition of advertisement, including computer-accessed communication; cf. Model Rule 7.2), Rule 7.5 (submission of advertisements and the 7.5(b)(8) website exemption), Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; cf. Model Rule 7.1), Rule 7.4 (required disclaimers), and Rule 7.6 (certification or designation by a non-ABA organization).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) (cf. Model Rule 7.1)
• MRPC 7.2 (advertising; definition of advertisement) (cf. Model Rule 7.2)
• MRPC 7.4 (required disclaimers)
• MRPC 7.5 (submission of advertisements; 7.5(b)(8) website exemption; 7.5(d) advisory opinions)
• MRPC 7.6 (certification or designation by a non-ABA organization)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites
• CA Op. 1995-142: Direct-Mail Marketing of Legal Services
• CA Op. 2004-167: Firm Trade Names and Government Titles

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/252/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1486/35a_et_op_252.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ETHICS OPINION NO. 252

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED April 22, 2005

The Ethics Committee has been asked to provide an opinion regarding a law firm's web page and the rules regarding lawyer advertising as stated in the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. An inquiry has been made as to whether a law firm's web page need be submitted to the Office of General Counsel for The Mississippi Bar in accordance with Rule 7.5(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, or if Rule 7.5(b)(8), MRPC, makes it exempt from the submission requirement. Next, an inquiry is made as to whether the sentence "[f]or more information please visit www.lawfirmname.com" contained in written materials constitutes a solicitation within the meaning of the rules, and if so, whether it negates the exemption outlined in Rule 7.5(b)(8), MRPC. The requestor also asks whether providing the firm web address, www.lawfirmname.com, as general information about the firm constitutes a solicitation within the meaning of the rules. These questions are posed in light of the recent amendments made by the Supreme Court of Mississippi to Rules 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5, MRPC, effective October 1, 2004.

Additionally, an opinion is sought regarding Rule 7.6, MRPC, and the requirement that an attorney certified or designated in a field of law by a non-ABA organization provide a disclaimer as outlined in the Rule and whether that requirement may be satisfied by posting a general disclaimer on the home page of the firm website with an asterisk on every attorney biography on the web page referencing the disclaimer language appearing on the home page.

Rule 7.2(a), MRPC, defines an advertisement as "an active quest for clients involving a public or non-public communication" and includes computer-accessed communication. The comment to this Rule further articulates:

Computer-accessed communications include, but are not limited to, Internet presences such as home pages or World Wide Web sites, unsolicited electronic mail communications, and information concerning a lawyer's or law firm's services that appears on World Wide Web search engine screens and elsewhere.

Rule 7.5, MRPC, addresses the mandatory submission requirement of advertisements prior to their dissemination. Rule 7.5(b), MRPC, outlines advertisements that are not required to be submitted prior to dissemination. Among these is 7.5(b)(8), MRPC, which states that "Internet Web pages viewed via a Web browser, in a search initiated by a person without solicitation" are exempt from the submission requirement. Therefore, while an internet web-page may be considered an advertisement, it is not

mandatory that it be submitted to the Office of General Counsel for The Mississippi Bar.

Additionally, providing the sentence "for more information please visit

www.lawfirmname.com" in written materials does not negate the exemption provided by 7.5(b)(8), MRPC. The phrase appears only as an additional access route to a source of information, is passive, and not an "active quest for clients." Moreover, providing www.lawfirmname.com as part of general information about the firm, such as street address and telephone number also does not constitute a solicitation. Once again, the law firm's web address appears only as an additional source of information about the firm and is a passive, not an "active quest for clients." Additionally, as articulated in Rule 7.2(f), MRPC, the name of the lawyer or law firm, a listing of lawyers associated with the firm, the office address and telephone numbers, office and telephone service hours in advertisements and written communications shall be presumed not to violate the provisions of Rule 7.1, MRPC. The office address referred to in this Rule includes the internet address of the law firm's website. Therefore, it does not constitute an advertisement, even if it is a passive attempt at solicitation.

Pertaining to the content of the law firm's website, it is not necessary for the disclaimer language required by Rule 7.2(c) and (d) and 7.4(a) to appear on every page. Moreover, it is not necessary for the biography of every attorney's page to contain the language required by Rule 7.6(a) regarding certification or designation by a non-ABA approved organization. The requirements outlined in the aforementioned Rules may be fulfilled by way of a general disclaimer icon or link the user may click to access a web page containing the compliant language. This icon or link should be easily located on the main page of the firm's website.

CAVEAT: An internet website may contain web pages or other types of information which are advertisements as defined in Rule 7.2 which do not fall within the exemption otherwise provided for in Rule 7.5(b)(8). Any advertisement appearing within a website exempt from submission, may require submission to the Office of the General Counsel pursuant to Rule 7.5, MRPC. Additionally, this Opinion does not circumvent Rule 7.5(d), MRPC, which allows a lawyer to request from the Office of General Counsel an advisory opinion concerning compliance of a contemplated advertisement or communication in advance of its dissemination.