Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA September 12, 2014

Can a law firm use a website domain name that combines its practice area with the word 'expert'?

Short answer: No. The opinion concludes that 'expert' implies a comparative claim of superior results that no disclaimer can cure, and is the equivalent of the 'specialist' label Rule 7.4 restricts, so a firm may not use 'expert' in its domain name; the limit does not reach offering one's services as an expert witness.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2014. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2014
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A law firm that practices exclusively in one area, with what it described as a very successful track record, wanted to use a domain name combining that practice area with the word "expert" (such as "realestatelawexpert"). The firm said its website would carry a disclaimer that it does not guarantee outcomes and that past success does not assure future results, and that it would use "expert" only in the domain name. It asked whether that was permissible (¶¶ 1-2).

The committee started with Rule 7.5(e)(3), which permits a firm to use a domain name not including the firm's name only if, among other things, the domain name "does not imply an ability to obtain results in a matter." Comment 2 gives examples like "win-your-case.com" that imply guaranteed favorable results, and N.Y. State 1005 (2014) had found "We Know How To Win For You" impermissible under Rule 7.1, adding that a "prior results" disclaimer would not cure the infirmity. The committee found "expert" laden with comparison: it denotes proven, superior skill, implying a seal of approval and greater assurance of a favorable outcome that no disclaimer readily cures (¶¶ 3-4).

The committee reinforced the point with two other rules. Comment 12 to Rule 7.1 says comparative descriptions not susceptible of factual support can mislead, so a lawyer may not advertise as the "Best," "Most Experienced," or "Hardest Working"; "expert" is exactly that kind of description. And Rule 7.4 permits claiming to be a "specialist" only in narrow certified circumstances, none present here; the committee treated "expert" as an obvious synonym for "specialist," citing decisions and opinions from other jurisdictions agreeing (¶¶ 5-6).

The committee closed by clarifying the limit: nothing in the opinion prevents a lawyer from offering or advertising services as an expert witness, testifying or consulting. Courts routinely qualify lawyers as experts, and that use, typically directed at other lawyers, does not raise the same concern about claims of superiority to the public (¶¶ 7-8).

In practice

Under the New York rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the opinion holds that a law firm may not use "expert" in its domain name even if the website elsewhere carries a "prior results do not guarantee future results" disclaimer. Per the opinion, the bar rests on three rules working together: Rule 7.5(e)(3) (no domain name implying an ability to obtain results), Rule 7.1 (no unsupportable comparative claims), and Rule 7.4 (the restricted "specialist" label, for which "expert" is a synonym). The committee expressly preserved a lawyer's ability to offer or advertise services as an expert witness.

Common questions

Q: Can a disclaimer cure the use of "expert" in the domain name?

A: No. The committee concluded a "prior results" disclaimer does not cure the comparative implication of "expert," consistent with its conclusion in N.Y. State 1005 (¶¶ 3-4, 8).

Q: Why is "expert" treated like "specialist"?

A: The committee found "expert" is an obvious synonym for "specialist," and Rule 7.4 restricts the "specialist" label to narrow certified circumstances not present here (¶ 6).

Q: Can a lawyer still advertise as an expert witness?

A: Yes. The committee said nothing in the opinion prevents a lawyer from offering or advertising services as a testifying or consulting expert witness (¶ 7).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.5(e) (domain names), Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services, including comparative claims), and Rule 7.4 (the "specialist" label), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.5, 7.1, and 7.4. The analysis turns on whether "expert" implies an ability to obtain results or makes an unsupportable comparative claim.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 7.5 / NY RPC 7.5(e)(3) (domain names; no implied ability to obtain results)
  • MR 7.1 / NY RPC 7.1 (comparative claims, Cmt. 12)
  • MR 7.4 / NY RPC 7.4 (the restricted "specialist" label)

Cases:

  • Spencer v. Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 579 F. Supp. 880 (E.D. Pa. 1984)

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 1005 (2014): "We Know How To Win For You" impermissible; disclaimer does not cure
  • N.Y. State 757 (2002): no support for "expert" even in communications with other lawyers
  • Maryland Op. 00-21; Ohio Op. 2005-06: agreement from other jurisdictions

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2014 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.