Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionalsMon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7enJones Day: Linking to Our Site is Trademark Infringement
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=453#commentsTue, 16 Sep 2008 19:28:50 +0000David HricikWebsitesAdvertisingBlogsIntellectual PropertyInternet UseComputer UsePrivacyDomain Nameshttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=453There’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.
http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=453Lawyers must use Interent domain names that are not misleading
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=302#commentsSat, 04 Mar 2006 23:09:31 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingDomain NamesNorth Carolinahttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2006/03/04/lawyers-may-use-interent-domain-names-that-are-not-misleading/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)
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=302Law firms may use a different form of its Internet domain name provided the name selected is not false or misleading
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=275#commentsFri, 15 Jul 2005 21:04:50 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingDomain NamesNew Jerseyhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2005/07/15/law-firms-may-use-a-different-form-of-its-internet-domain-name-provided-the-name-selected-is-not-false-or-misleading/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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=275South Carolina lawyers may use descriptive domain names
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=338#commentsThu, 05 Aug 2004 00:31:34 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingSouth CarolinaDomain Nameshttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2004/08/04/south-carolina-lawyers-may-use-descriptive-domain-names/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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=338Lawyers must use domain names that are not false or misleading
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=49#commentsFri, 09 Apr 2004 04:00:00 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingNew YorkDomain Nameshttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=49The 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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=49Hawaii lawyer websites constitute advertising
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=173#commentsThu, 03 May 2001 20:59:45 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingE-mailDomain NamesHawaiihttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2001/05/03/hawaii-lawyer-websites-constitute-advertising/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).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=173Law firm domain names may not be false or misleading
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=79#commentsSun, 25 Mar 2001 05:00:00 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingArizonaDomain Nameshttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=79A 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.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=79Law firms can use numbers, letters, or words other than the firm name in the firm’s Internet domain name
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=313#commentsThu, 15 Jul 1999 23:37:37 +0000PeterkWebsitesAdvertisingOhioDomain Nameshttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1999/07/15/law-firms-can-use-numbers-letters-or-words-other-than-the-firm-name-in-the-firms-internet-domain-name/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).