Can a New Jersey lawyer buy a competitor's name as a search-engine keyword so the lawyer's own website appears when someone searches that competitor?

Plain-English summary

The Committee, acting jointly with the Committee on Attorney Advertising, addressed two related inquiries about online attorney advertising. The first: may a lawyer purchase a competitor lawyer's name as a search-engine keyword (a "Google Adword" or similar) so that the buyer's own firm website appears, ordinarily as a paid or "sponsored" result, when someone searches for the competitor by name? The second: may a lawyer pay the search engine to embed a hyperlink on a competitor's name that diverts the user from the searched-for website to the buyer's own website?

On the first question, the Committee on Attorney Advertising found that buying a competitor's name as a keyword is not a "communication" governed by the advertising rules (RPC 7.1), and the ACPE found it does not violate RPC 1.4 (no interaction occurs between the buyer and the searcher) or RPC 8.4(c) and (d). The Committee concurred with Texas and Wisconsin authority (and declined to follow North Carolina's contrary view): because both firms' websites appear and the buyer's site is ordinarily marked "sponsored," the user can choose which to select, so the practice is not deceptive, fraudulent, or dishonest. Nor is it conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which requires "particularly egregious" or "flagrant" conduct.

On the second question, the Committee reached the opposite result. Paying to insert a hyperlink on a competitor's name that surreptitiously redirects the user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own site is "purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher," and that deceit violates RPC 8.4(c).

Currency note

This opinion has been modified. On May 22, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 260 N.J. 482 (2025), affirming that purchasing a competitor's name as a keyword does not, in itself, violate the RPCs, but modifying the opinion to require a disclaimer. A lawyer who runs competitive keyword advertising that includes purchasing a competitor lawyer or law firm name must include, on any landing page the paid ad directs the consumer to, a prominent disclaimer: "You arrived at this page via a paid advertisement on [insert name of search engine provider] through paid keyword search results. This website and the legal business it describes are affiliated only with [insert name of purchasing attorney] and the attorneys referenced within this website." The ACPE issued a Supplement to Opinion 735 on December 8, 2025, restating the Court's holding and disclaimer requirement. The second part of Opinion 735, that hyperlinking a competitor's name violates RPC 8.4(c), was not challenged and was not disturbed.

In practice

The opinion holds that purchasing a competitor lawyer's name as a search-engine keyword, so the buyer's own website appears in the results, is permitted, while paying to insert a hyperlink on a competitor's name that diverts the user to the buyer's site is prohibited as deceitful conduct under RPC 8.4(c). Per the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2025 modification, a lawyer using competitive keyword advertising that purchases a competitor's name must now display the Court's prescribed disclaimer on the landing page the paid ad leads to.

Common questions

Q: Can a New Jersey lawyer buy a competitor's name as a Google keyword?

A: Yes. The Committee concluded that purchasing a competitor lawyer's name as a keyword is not a "communication" under RPC 7.1 and does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under RPC 8.4(c), because both firms' sites appear and the buyer's is ordinarily marked "sponsored." Under the Supreme Court's 2025 modification, the buyer must also post a disclaimer on the resulting landing page.

Q: Can a lawyer pay to put a hyperlink on a competitor's name that redirects searchers?

A: No. The Committee found that surreptitiously redirecting a user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own website is purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher and violates RPC 8.4(c).

Q: Why isn't keyword advertising treated as "false or misleading" advertising?

A: Per the opinion, the keyword purchase itself is not a "communication" to which the attorney-advertising rules (RPC 7.1) apply, and the search engine ordinarily marks the purchased result as paid or "sponsored," so the user is not deceived about which website is which.

Q: What disclaimer is now required?

A: Per the Supreme Court's May 22, 2025 modification, a lawyer running competitive keyword advertising on a competitor's name must place a disclaimer on the landing page stating that the visitor arrived via a paid advertisement and that the site is affiliated only with the purchasing attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets RPC 7.1 (governing lawyer "communications" about services; cf. Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 1.4 (communication with clients; cf. Model Rule 1.4), and centers on RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; cf. Model Rule 8.4). The Committee drew on out-of-state ethics authority that the opinion itself cites, including a Texas opinion finding keyword use neither dishonest nor deceitful and a Wisconsin decision; it declined to follow a contrary North Carolina opinion.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• RPC 7.1 (lawyer communications about services); cf. Model Rule 7.1
• RPC 1.4 (communication); cf. Model Rule 1.4
• RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct; dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); cf. Model Rule 8.4

Cases:

• In re Helmer, 237 N.J. 70 (2019), standard for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• In re Hinds, 90 N.J. 604 (1982), "particularly egregious" / "flagrant" standard
• Habush v. Cannon, 828 N.W.2d 876 (Wis. App. Ct. 2013), keyword use not a privacy violation
• In re Opinion No. 735, 260 N.J. 482 (2025), affirming as modified with a landing-page disclaimer requirement

Other opinions cited:

• State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 661 (July 2016): keyword use not dishonest or deceitful
• North Carolina State Bar 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 (April 27, 2012): contrary view, keyword purchase violates RPC 8.4(c)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 661: Competitor Name as Search-Engine Keyword
• NJ ACPE Op. 738: Responding to Negative Online Reviews
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2020/a_61_62_19.pdf
• Original PDF: https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2020/a_61_62_19.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Issued by ACPE June 25, 2019

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

ACPE OPINION 735

Lawyer's Use of Internet Search Engine Keyword Advertising

The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics received an inquiry asking whether a lawyer may, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, purchase a Google Adword or keyword that is a competitor lawyer's name, in order to display the lawyer's own law firm website in the search results when a person searches for the competitor lawyer by name. Internet search engine advertising programs permit businesses to purchase certain keywords or phrases; when a person searching on the internet uses those words in the search, the websites of purchasers of the keywords will appear in the search results, ordinarily presented as paid or "sponsored" ads. The same keywords or phrases usually can be purchased by more than one business.

Inquirer further asked whether, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, a lawyer may insert, or pay the internet search engine company to insert, a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer that will divert the user from the searched-for website to the lawyer's own law firm website. Assuming (without finding) that internet search engine advertising programs can generally operate in this manner, the Committee considers the inquiry presented: may a lawyer insert, or pay an internet search engine company to insert, a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer that will divert the user from the searched-for website to the lawyer's own law firm website.

The inquiry was also docketed with the Committee on Attorney Advertising. That Committee found that purchasing a competitor lawyer's name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. Attorney advertising rules apply to lawyers' "communications." RPC 7.1. The keyword purchase of a competitor lawyer's name is not, in itself, a "communication."

The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics considered whether this conduct violates Rule of Professional Ethics 1.4 ("Communication"). Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer's name as a keyword and the person searching on the internet. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 does not apply in this situation.

The Committee also considered whether purchasing a keyword of a competitor lawyer's name violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 ("Misconduct"). This Rule states that it is "professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation . . . [or] engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . ." RPC 8.4(c) and (d).

There has been some disagreement among other jurisdictions on this issue. The Texas State Bar Professional Ethics Committee found that, "given the general use by all sorts of businesses of names of competing businesses as keywords in search-engine advertising, such use by Texas lawyers in their advertising is neither dishonest nor fraudulent nor deceitful and does not involve misrepresentation." State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 661 (July 2016). See also Habush v. Cannon, 828 N.W.2d 876, 881-82 (Wisc. App. Ct. 2013) (a lawyer's purchase of competitor lawyers' names as keywords in internet search engines does not violate the Wisconsin right of privacy statute because the "use" of the competitors' names is not visible to the consumer). But see North Carolina State Bar 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 (April 27, 2012) (purchasing another lawyer's name as keyword for internet search is dishonest conduct in violation of RPC 8.4(c)).[1]

The Committee concurs with the approach of Texas and Wisconsin and finds that purchasing keywords of a competitor lawyer's name is not conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The websites of the keyword purchaser's law firm and the competitor's law firm will, presumably, both appear in the resulting search. The keyword purchaser's website ordinarily will appear as a paid or "sponsored" website, while the competitor lawyer's website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or "sponsored" website). The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or "sponsored." This is not deceptive, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct within the meaning of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c).

The Committee further finds that purchasing keywords of a competitor lawyer's name is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The standard for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice is high; this Rule applies to "particularly egregious conduct," or conduct that "flagrantly violat[es] . . . accepted professional norms." In re Helmer, 237 N.J. 70, 83 (2019) (quoting In re Hinds, 90 N.J. 604, 632 (1982)). Purchasing keywords that are the name of a competitor lawyer is not egregious or flagrant conduct.

Inquirer also asked whether a lawyer may pay Google to insert a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer's name that diverts the user to the first lawyer's website. The Committee finds that surreptitiously redirecting a user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own website is purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher for the other lawyer's website. Such deceitful conduct violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c).

Accordingly, a lawyer may, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, purchase an internet search engine advertising keyword that is a competitor lawyer's name, in order to display the lawyer's own law firm website in the search results when a person searches for the competitor lawyer by name. This conduct does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Therefore, it does not violate Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) or (d).

A lawyer may not, however, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, insert, or pay the internet search engine company to insert, a hyperlink on the name or website URL of a competitor lawyer that will divert the user from the searched-for website to the lawyer's own law firm website. Redirecting a user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own website is purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher for the other lawyer's website. Such deceitful conduct violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c).

[1] In 2013, the Florida Bar's Standing Committee on Advertising proposed an opinion that would have found it to be a deceptive and misleading advertising technique for a lawyer to purchase the name of another lawyer or law firm as a keyword in search engines so that the lawyer's advertisement or sponsored website link appears when a person uses the other lawyer or law firm's name as a search term. This proposed opinion, however, was rejected by the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics and withdrawn by the Florida Bar Board of Governors. See https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/.