Can a North Carolina law firm use a website URL, like Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com, that does not identify the site as belonging to a law firm?

Plain-English summary

Building on 2005 FEO 8, which held that a law firm website's URL is a trade name that must be registered with the State Bar under Rule 7.5(a) and may not be misleading, lawyers applied to register URLs such as "Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com," "DrugInjury.com," and "NCworkinjury.com." None of those URLs include language indicating they are law firm websites.

On whether a firm may use such a URL, the opinion concludes yes, with a condition. Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a) prohibit misleading trade names, but the opinion treats the Rules as rules of reason interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation (Rule 0.2, Scope, cmt. [1]). The opinion reasons that none of the listed URLs make false promises or misrepresentations about a lawyer or a lawyer's services. A person researching a medical condition or injury who is shown one of these addresses can simply decline to click it, or exit the site once they see it is not what they sought; at worst the URL costs an extra click, and at best it gives a user helpful information about legal rights. The opinion therefore concludes that as long as the URL is not otherwise misleading or false and the homepage identifies the sponsoring lawyer or firm, the URL need not contain language specifically identifying it as a law firm's website.

In practice

Under the North Carolina rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the analysis turns on whether the URL is misleading and whether the homepage cures any ambiguity. The opinion holds that a topical or condition-based URL is permissible when it is not false or misleading and the homepage clearly and unambiguously identifies the lawyer or firm behind the site.

Per the opinion, the focus is on whether the URL makes false promises or misrepresentations about the lawyer's services, not on whether the address itself signals that it leads to a law firm.

Common questions

Q: Can a law firm's website URL omit words like "law firm" or "attorney"?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes a URL need not identify itself as a law firm's website, as long as it is not otherwise false or misleading and the homepage clearly identifies the sponsoring lawyer or firm.

Q: Are condition-based URLs like "DrugInjury.com" considered misleading trade names?

A: Not by themselves. The opinion concludes those URLs make no false promise or misrepresentation about a lawyer's services and so are not misleading under Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a).

Q: What has to appear on the website itself?

A: The opinion concludes the homepage must clearly and unambiguously identify the site as belonging to a lawyer or law firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services, corresponding to Model Rule 7.1) and Rule 7.5(a) (firm names and trade names, corresponding to Model Rule 7.5), read through Rule 0.2 (Scope), which treats the Rules as rules of reason. It builds directly on 2005 FEO 8's holding that a website URL is a registrable trade name.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / NC Rule 7.1 (misleading communications about services)
• MR 7.5 / NC Rule 7.5(a) (firm names and trade names; registration)
• NC Rule 0.2, Scope, cmt. [1] (Rules as rules of reason)

Other opinions cited:

• 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 8 (a website URL is a trade name that must be registered)

See also

• NC State Bar 2006 FEO 20: Departed Lawyer's Surname in Firm Name
• ABA Formal Op. 90-357: Use of "Of Counsel" Designation
• Alabama Ethics Op. 1990-100: Trade Name in Firm Communications

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2005-formal-ethics-opinion-14/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

2005 FEO 8 ruled that the URL for a law firm website is a trade name that must be registered with the State Bar, in compliance with Rule 7.5(a), and may not be misleading.

Lawyers have applied to the State Bar to register the following URLs for their law firm websites: "Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com" "DrugInjury.com" and "NCworkinjury. com". None of the URLs contain language sufficient to indicate to a user that the URL is for the website of a law firm. May a law firm use a URL that does not include words or language sufficient to identify it as the address of a website of a law firm?

Opinion:

Yes, provided the URL is not otherwise false or misleading and the homepage of the website clearly and unambiguously identifies the site as belonging to a lawyer or a law firm.

Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.5(a) prohibit lawyers and law firms from using trade names that are misleading. Nevertheless, the Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason and should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation. Rule 0.2, Scope, cmt. [1]. None of the URLs listed in the inquiry make false promises or misrepresentations about a lawyer or a lawyer's services. Although a person who is using the internet to research a medical condition, such as mesothelioma, or injuries caused by prescription medications or on the job, may be given one of these website addresses in a response to an internet browser search, if the user is not interested in legal advice relative to the medical condition or the injury, the user does not have to click on the URL or, having done so, may exit the website as soon as he or she determines that it does not contain the information being sought. At worst, the URLs may cause the user of the internet an extra click of the mouse and, at best, they may provide a user with helpful information about legal rights. Therefore, as long as a URL of a law firm is not otherwise misleading or false and the homepage of the website identifies the sponsoring law firm or lawyer, the URL does not have to contain language specifically identifying the website as one belonging to a law firm.