Can a law firm use a generic domain name like 'newyorklawyer.com' instead of its firm name, and advertise with it?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2003. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A personal-injury firm whose name properly consists of three partners' names wants to set up a website under a generic domain like "newyorklawyer.com" or "dial-a-lawyer.com," advertise on television and radio using that domain as its primary identifier, and run client testimonials referring to the domain rather than the firm name. The Committee is asked whether a domain name must track the firm name under the law-firm-name rules, and whether the firm may advertise by reference to the domain.
On the first question, New York's DR 2-102(B) bars practicing under a trade name or a name that does not convey the identity of the lawyers, and many New York opinions have prohibited locational and other trade names. But the Committee concludes that merely designating a domain name is not "practicing" law under that name, so DR 2-102(B)'s firm-name strictures do not govern; instead the domain is governed by the general advertising rules, chiefly DR 2-101. Following Ohio Op. 99-4 and Arizona Op. 97-04, the opinion permits a non-name domain under four conditions: the website clearly and conspicuously shows the actual firm name, address, and phone (DR 2-101(K)); the domain is not false, deceptive, or misleading (DR 2-101(A)); the domain does not imply special expertise or competence or suggest a particular result (the opinion flags "bigverdict.com," "bestlawyer.com," and the like as problematic); and it is not used as a substitute identifier for the firm.
On advertising, the opinion concludes the firm may publicize the domain to direct readers and listeners to its website, but may not refer to "the services offered by New York Lawyer" or otherwise replace the firm's name with the domain in describing itself, its services, or its personnel. Client testimonials are permissible if non-misleading and if the clients do not use the domain as a nickname or substitute for the firm's name.
In practice
Under the New York Code as it stood at the time, the opinion holds that a firm's domain name is judged by the advertising rules rather than the firm-name rules, so a generic domain is allowed if the site conspicuously carries the real firm identity, the domain is not misleading or self-laudatory, and the domain is used only to point to the website rather than to stand in for the firm's name in advertising. The opinion expressly declines to address First Amendment questions about attorney advertising.
This opinion applies the former New York Code (DR/EC numbering). New York replaced the Code with the Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 1, 2009; the advertising rule DR 2-101 now corresponds to Rule 7.1 (and the detailed advertising rules of New York Rule 7.1), and the firm-name rule DR 2-102(B) to Rule 7.5. New York's advertising rules were substantially revised in 2007. Verify the current rule text before relying on any specific requirement.
Common questions
Q: Does a law firm's domain name have to include the firm's name?
A: No. The opinion concludes that designating a domain name is not practicing under that name, so a generic domain is permitted under the advertising rules if the conditions are met.
Q: What makes a domain name improper?
A: The opinion concludes a domain is improper if it is false or misleading, implies special expertise or competence, or suggests a particular result; it cites "bigverdict.com" and "bestlawyer.com" as examples of problematic names.
Q: Can a firm advertise using the domain instead of its name?
A: Only to point to the website. The opinion concludes the domain may not replace the firm's name as a substitute identifier when describing the firm, its services, or its personnel.
Q: What must the website itself show?
A: The opinion concludes the website must clearly and conspicuously include the actual firm name, office address, and telephone number under DR 2-101(K).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets the former New York Code's advertising rule DR 2-101 (including the false-or-misleading bar in DR 2-101(A) and the identifying-information requirement of DR 2-101(K)) and the firm-name rule DR 2-102(B), with EC 2-11. The corresponding Model Rules are MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and MR 7.5 (firm names). It follows Ohio Op. 99-4 and Arizona Op. 97-04.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) / NY DR 2-101, DR 2-101(A), (K)
- MR 7.5 (firm names) / NY DR 2-102(B)
Cases:
- In re Shephard, 459 N.Y.S.2d 632 (3d Dep't 1983); In re Shapiro, 455 N.Y.S.2d 604 (1st Dep't 1982), prohibited law-firm trade names
Other opinions cited:
- Ohio Op. 99-4; Arizona Op. 97-04 (domain names judged under general advertising rules)
- N.Y. City 95-8; N.Y. City 82-44; N.Y. State 709
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites
- NYC Bar Ethics Op. 2000-4: Listing 'Affiliated' Firms on Letterhead
- ISBA Ethics Op. 06-02: Third-Party Marketing Vendor and Advertising
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2003 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.