16
Sep
2008
There’s an article here. Oh, and here. Oh, and this one.
There’s a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods. Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to the firm’s website, and truthful, factual links to the individuals’ bios on the firm webpage.
Jones Day filed this complaint for trademark infringement. The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm’s website and linking to the two lawyers’ bios who bought houses.
Comments : Comments Off
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Blogs, Intellectual Property, Internet Use, Computer Use, Privacy, Domain Names
4
Mar
2006
The URL for a North Carolina law firm website does not have to include words that identify the site as belonging to a law firm provided the URL is not otherwise misleading. 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 (January 20, 2006)
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Domain Names, North Carolina
15
Jul
2005
Law firms may use a different form of its Internet domain name provided the name selected is not false or misleading. Opinion 32 (180 N.J.L.J. 654, May 23, 2005).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Domain Names, New Jersey
4
Aug
2004
Unless a domain name is false or misleading, South Carolina lawyers may use descriptive domain names for their websites. South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 04-06 (June 18, 2004).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, South Carolina, Domain Names
8
Apr
2004
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York issues an ethics opinion on the ethical rules implicated by a lawyer’s use of a domain name other than the firm name. “A lawyer or law firm may use a domain name that does not include or embody the firm’s name or that of any individual lawyer, under certain conditions: the web site bearing the domain name must clearly and conspicuously identify the actual law firm name; the domain name must not be false, deceptive or misleading; the name must not imply any special expertise or competence, or suggest a particular result; and, it must not be used in advertising as a substitute identifier of the firm.” NYC Eth. Op. 2003-01 (April 9, 2004).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, New York, Domain Names
3
May
2001
Communications concerning a lawyer’s services on a web site are advertising. See Formal Opinion 41. (April 26, 2001). As such, these communications are subject to HRPC 7.1 (communication cannot be false or misleading), HRPC 7.2 (advertising), HRPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and certification), and HRPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). Communications covered by the opinion include, but are not limited to: domain names; web addresses; e-mail addresses; and banners, pop-ups, and other on-site advertising.
E-mail solicitation of prospective clients is already prohibited by HRPC 7.3(f)(1).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, E-mail, Domain Names, Hawaii
25
Mar
2001
A law firm domain name does not have to be identical to the firm’s actual name but it otherwise must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct including refraining from being false or misleading nor may it imply any special competence or unique affiliations unless factually true. See Arizona Opinion 01-05 (March 2001). A for-profit law firm domain name should not use the top level domain suffix “.org” nor should it use a domain name that implies that the law firm is affiliated with a particular non-profit organization or governmental entity.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Arizona, Domain Names
15
Jul
1999
Although it is preferable for a lawyer to use his or her law firm name as part of the domain name for the law firm’s Internet website, it is not improper for a lawyer to use other letters, words, or numbers provided that the domain name is not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, and does not imply special competence or experience. Opinion 99-4 (June 4, 1999).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Ohio, Domain Names
