Can a law firm use a descriptive website address that names its field of practice, like bankruptcylawyer.com?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether a lawyer may create a website using a descriptive address (URL), such as one indicating a field of practice (for example, a personal-injury or bankruptcy address), rather than the firm's own name. It limited the opinion to descriptive-name URLs for websites controlled by lawyers licensed in South Carolina, leaving aside the separate questions of private referral companies and Internet referral services it had addressed in earlier opinions (86-13B, 88-20, 00-10, 01-03).

The committee concluded that, unless the URL is false or misleading, a firm may use a descriptive web address. Drawing on its trade-name opinion 03-10, it held that a descriptive name in a URL, if a trade name, must comply with Rule 7.5 and may not imply a connection with a government agency or a legal-services organization, and must not violate Rule 7.1 (false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communications). It noted that listing a field of law in which the lawyer lacks experience could be misleading. Under Rule 7.4, the name must not reasonably suggest the firm's lawyers are certified specialists unless they could hold themselves out as such, though the committee did not think a practice area in a URL, by itself, creates that suggestion; the URL is one factor in evaluating the whole site.

Citing In re R.M.J. and Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, the committee treated truthful advertising as protected commercial speech and saw no reason to distinguish printed from electronic advertising. It added that under Rule 7.2, the site's text should identify at least one lawyer in the firm responsible for the site's operation and content, whether or not a trade name or descriptive name is used in the URL.

In practice

Under this opinion, on the facts presented, a South Carolina firm could use a descriptive practice-area URL provided it is not false or misleading. The committee tied permissibility to compliance with Rule 7.5 (trade names; no implied government or legal-services-organization connection), Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading content, including claiming a field of law without experience), and Rule 7.4 (no unsupported suggestion of certified specialty), and required, under Rule 7.2, that the site name a lawyer responsible for its content.

Common questions

Q: Can my firm's website address name a practice area instead of the firm?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes a descriptive web address controlled by South Carolina lawyers is permissible unless the address is false or misleading.

Q: What makes a descriptive URL improper?

A: It is improper if it violates Rule 7.1 (false or misleading), implies a connection with a government agency or legal-services organization under Rule 7.5, or suggests certified specialization the lawyers cannot claim under Rule 7.4. The committee noted that naming a field where the lawyer lacks experience could be misleading.

Q: Does a practice area in the URL mean I am claiming to be a specialist?

A: Not by itself. The committee did not believe including a practice area in a URL alone creates a misleading suggestion of certified specialty; it is one factor in judging the whole site.

Q: Does the site itself need to identify a lawyer?

A: Yes. Under Rule 7.2, the site's text should identify at least one lawyer in the firm responsible for its operation and content, regardless of the URL.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies South Carolina's versions of Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; responsible-lawyer identification), Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization), and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and trade names), in the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR. It relies on the First Amendment commercial-speech framework from Bates and In re R.M.J.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / SC Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
• MR 7.2 / SC Rule 7.2 (advertising; identify a responsible lawyer)
• MR 7.4 / SC Rule 7.4 (fields of practice; certified specialization)
• MR 7.5 / SC Rule 7.5 (firm names and trade names)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977), truthful lawyer advertising is protected commercial speech
• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (U.S. 1982), designation of practice areas in advertising permitted unless false or misleading

Other opinions cited:

• SC Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-10 (use of trade names in advertising)
• SC Ethics Advisory Opinions 88-05, 88-25, 90-31, 86-13B, 88-20, 00-10, 01-03 (related advertising and Internet-referral opinions)

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 04-05: Identifying the firm in out-of-state co-counsel ads
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-04-06/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 04-06

Facts
A number of Internet Websites involving legal services or solicitations have URLs (addresses) other than the name of a law firm or attorney. For example, www.personalinjurylawyer.com or www.bankruptcylawyer.com. (See also Exhibit A.) Some Internet Websites may provide permissible advertising services to law firms; some Internet Websites may be operating as impermissible attorney referral services under the control of businesses not engaged in the practice of law; and some Websites operate under the control and supervision of an attorney and exist for the purpose of advertising and promoting the services of a particular law firm.

Question
Is it ethical for an attorney to create a Website using a URL (address) which indicates the firm’s field of practice?

Summary
Unless the URL is false or misleading, it is permissible for a law firm to use a descriptive Web address.

Opinion
In Opinions 00-10 and 01-03, this Committee discussed participation of attorneys in dot.com companies and the question of Internet referrals generally. The question presented concerns neither the operation of Websites with descriptive name URLs by private companies that charge for the service and intend to refer cases to the paying attorney, nor Internet referrals. Those issues the Committee believes are addressed in Opinions 86-13B, 88-20, 00-10 and 01-03. Therefore, the Committee’s present opinion is limited to the use of descriptive names in an Internet Website URL controlled by lawyers licensed in the State of South Carolina.

The use of trade names in advertising was recently discussed by the Committee in Opinion 03-10. Although under the question presented herein a Website URL would not necessarily contain the name “MidlandsBankruptcyLawyers.com,” the issue presented here is a situation analogous to that discussed in Opinion 03-10. The use of a descriptive name in a Website URL, if a trade name, must comply with Rule 7.5 and may not “imply a connection with a governmental agency or a legal services organization.” Second, the name may not violate Rule 7.1, which prohibits false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communications. See Opinion 88-25. (In order to list a particular field of law in an advertisement, the lawyer must have experience in that field. Listing a field of law where the lawyer does not have experience could be misleading and deceptive.)

The name used in a Website URL must not create the reasonable inference that the firm’s lawyers are certified specialists, unless the lawyers could otherwise hold themselves out, under Rule 7.4, as certified specialists in the field of practice claimed. However, the Committee does not believe that the inclusion of a practice area in a firm’s Website URL is alone sufficient to create a misleading suggestion that the lawyers in the firm are certified specialists in a particular practice area. The content of a URL is but one factor to consider in making a determination whether the content of the Website taken in its totality is within the proper bounds of lawyer advertising.

As acknowledged by the Committee in Opinion 88-05, the United States Supreme Court in the case of In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982), permitted designation of specific areas of practice in telephone directory advertising and other advertising unless false or misleading. See also Opinion 88-05. Logically, there would be no reason to distinguish between the content of advertising published in printed form to that published electronically. As noted in Opinion 90-31:

The United States Supreme Court held in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S 350 (1977), that lawyer advertising which is not false or misleading is commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In accord with Bates, South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 and 7.2 allow attorneys to "advertise through public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, outdoor advertising, radio or television, or through written or recorded communication" so long as the communication is not false or misleading.

Rule 7.1 defines false or misleading communication, and reference should be made to that Rule when evaluating the propriety of Website content. The text of any law firm Website should identify a lawyer within the firm who is responsible for operation and content of the site. Rule 7.2 requires the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the content be listed, and this provision applies without regard to whether a trade name or descriptive name is used in a Website URL.

Exhibit A
While the Committee expresses no opinion of the propriety of any of the following Websites, examples of Website content with descriptive URLs might include the following:
www.accidentlawyersoffice.com
www.airlaw.com
www.appeallawyer.com
www.asbestosinjury.com
www.asbestoslawyer.com
www.attorney-criminal-dui.com
www.attorneynow.com
www.auto-accident-lawyer-texas.com
www.baycol-side-effects.com
www.bicycleaccidentlawyers.com
www.bigrigattorneys.com
www.boatlaw.com
www.caraccidentattorneyatlaw.com
www.car-accidents.com
www.carinjury.com www.carwreckteam.com
www.carlawyers.com
www.collectionlawyer.com
www.construction-injuries.com
www.consumerlawpage.com
www.courtroomlaw.com
www.crashworthy.com
www.crimestopshere.net
www.criminallaw.com
www.cycle-law.com
www.dogbitelaw.com
www.dreamlegalteam.com
www.drunkdrivingdefense.com
www.duiattorneys.com
www.employerlaw.com
www.employmentlaw.com
www.employmentlawfirms.com
www.familylaw.com
www.findgreatlawyers.com
www.immigrationlaw.com
www.injurylaw.com
www.injurylawattys.com
www.injurylawyer.com
www.injurylawyer.org
www.injurylawyer.us
www.lemonlaw.com
www.majoraccidentlawyer.com
www.majoraccidentlawyers.com
www.malpracticelaw.com
www.massaccidentlaw.com
www.mesothelioma.com
www.mesotheliomalawyerdirectory.com
www.motorcycle-accidents-lawyers-attorneys.com
www.new-york-construction- accidents.com
www.newyork-injurylawyers.com
www.nocuffs.com
www.ohioaviationlawyer.com
www.patentlawyer.com
www.patentpending.com
www.personalinjurycal.com
www.personal-injury-com
www.personalinjuryhotline.com
www.plaintiffslaw.com
www.productlawyer.com
www.rolloverlawyer.com
www.sandiegocriminaldefense.com
www.serious-injury-attys.com
www.taxcounsel.com
www.texastriallawyer.com
www.thelawexperts.com
www.themotorcyclelawyers.com
www.thepersonalinjurylawyers.com
www.tmlawoffices.com
www.trial-attorneys-usa.com
www.triallaw.com
www.truck-accident-group.com
www.truckaccidentlawyer.com
www.trucking-accident-lawyers.com
www.truckinjuries.com
www.truck-wreck-lawyers.com
www.utah-injury-attorney.com
www.waterlaw.com
www.workercomplawyer.com
www.worksite-injury.com
www.wrongful-death.com
www.wrongful-termination-lawyer.com
www.yourinjurylawyers.com