In an opinion issued today, the Supreme Court concluded in its review of ACPE Opinion 735 that purchasing another attorney’s name as a search term for internet advertising purchases does not constitute an ethics violation. The NJSBA asked for the review because it steadfastly believes that purchasing another’s name and capitalizing on their goodwill and reputation is misleading, unprofessional and should be construed as a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In a dissent, Justice Fasciale stated: “I would hold that this method of deceptive advertising — to secretly appropriate for oneself the earned good will and reputation of another lawyer or firm solely for personal financial gain — violates RPC 8.4(c)’s prohibition against engaging ‘in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation’.” We agree with Justice Fasciale’s dissent, which reflects the concerns of the bar that a lawyer’s reputation as a trusted and honest advocate should not be used for another attorney’s economic gain. To allow otherwise appears to run counter to the high standards attorneys are typically required to meet in their advertising practices and unfortunately puts lawyers’ reputations and businesses at risk.
The decision is also disappointing because it allows for the very real probability that those seeking legal representation could be misled when searching for a specific attorney, especially in a time of crisis. The NJSBA believes that consumers should have the benefit of fair competition in choosing their legal counsel, but no disclaimer can account for the unfair, and often unknowing, diversion of consumers to a competitor’s website that is now permitted.