Search News & Press Releases

Supreme Court grants NJSBA petition for review on question over poaching clients by purchasing internet keyword advertising

May 28, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Wendy Solomon
732-937-7504
   
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that looks at whether it is appropriate to permit lawyers to purchase a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword in an internet search as part of a search engine’s ad campaign in order to promote the lawyer’s law firm.
   
The New Jersey State Bar Association petitioned for review because it argued the practice “condones gamesmanship over professionalism.”
   
The NJSBA urged the Court to review Opinion Number 735 by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), which opined that the practice does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The brief was written by NJSBA member Bonnie C. Frost, of Einhorn Barbarito.
   
Read the brief in support of petition to review here. Read the brief in response to brief and appendix here.
   
“The NJSBA believes a critical question exists about whether it is ethical for one lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name for the purpose of a keyword search, thereby capitalizing on someone else’s goodwill and reputation,” said the NJSBA in the brief if filed with the Court seeking review. “While Opinion 735 attempts to answer that question, the NJSBA believes it is based on several presumptions which may not always be accurate and could yield questionable conclusions.”
   
The opinion, issued last June, analyzed whether a lawyer is permitted to purchase certain keywords or phrases as part of the lawyer’s advertising so that his or her law firm appears in the search results. The ACPE further analyzed whether a lawyer may insert or pay the internet search engine company to insert a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user from the website originally searched to the lawyer’s own law firm website. While the ACPE found that inserting a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer’s name that diverts the user to the first lawyer’s website violates RPC 8.4(c), it found that the purchase of keywords or phrases that lead the user to a competitor lawyer “does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ACPE opined that this activity did not violate RPC 8.4(c) or (d).
   
“The keyword purchaser’s website ordinarily will appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website, while the competitor lawyer’s website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website),” said the ACPE in its opinion. “The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or ‘sponsored’.” The NJSBA took issue with this analysis, questioning whether the consumer understands the distinction between sponsored and organic search results.
   
The Bergen County Bar Association joined the NJSBA in urging the Court to review the opinion. “When used ethically and honestly, keyword advertising permits attorneys to disseminate truthful and helpful information to the public and, as a corollary, enables potential clients to locate qualified attorneys to assist them,” wrote Andrew Cevasco of Archer & Greiner and Thomas Loikith of Harwood Lloyd in a brief filed on behalf of the county bar. “However, use of a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword has the opposite effect—it allows the purchaser lawyer to benefit from an unfair and unwarranted association because it misleads the public.”
   
The Committee on Attorney Advertising, which also considered these inquiries, found that purchasing a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. It cited to RPC 7.1, which only applies to lawyers’ “communications.” That committee concluded that the purchase of a competitor lawyer’s name is not, in and of itself, a “communication.”
   
Similarly, the ACPE determined that RPC 1.4 did not apply in this situation. RPC 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. “There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword and a person searching on the Internet.” See ACPE Opinion #735, p. 2.
   
For a full copy of Opinion 735, visit NJcourts.gov.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that looks at whether it is appropriate to permit lawyers to purchase a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword in an internet search as part of a search engine’s ad campaign in order to promote the lawyer’s law firm.

The New Jersey State Bar Association petitioned for review because it argued the practice “condones gamesmanship over professionalism.”

The NJSBA urged the Court to review Opinion Number 735 by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), which opined that the practice does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The brief was written by NJSBA member Bonnie C. Frost, of Einhorn Barbarito.

Read the brief in support of petition to review here. Read the brief in response to brief and appendix here.

“The NJSBA believes a critical question exists about whether it is ethical for one lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name for the purpose of a keyword search, thereby capitalizing on someone else’s goodwill and reputation,” said the NJSBA in the brief if filed with the Court seeking review. “While Opinion 735 attempts to answer that question, the NJSBA believes it is based on several presumptions which may not always be accurate and could yield questionable conclusions.”

The opinion, issued last June, analyzed whether a lawyer is permitted to purchase certain keywords or phrases as part of the lawyer’s advertising so that his or her law firm appears in the search results. The ACPE further analyzed whether a lawyer may insert or pay the internet search engine company to insert a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user from the website originally searched to the lawyer’s own law firm website. While the ACPE found that inserting a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer’s name that diverts the user to the first lawyer’s website violates RPC 8.4(c), it found that the purchase of keywords or phrases that lead the user to a competitor lawyer “does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ACPE opined that this activity did not violate RPC 8.4(c) or (d).

“The keyword purchaser’s website ordinarily will appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website, while the competitor lawyer’s website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website),” said the ACPE in its opinion. “The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or ‘sponsored’.” The NJSBA took issue with this analysis, questioning whether the consumer understands the distinction between sponsored and organic search results.

The Bergen County Bar Association joined the NJSBA in urging the Court to review the opinion. “When used ethically and honestly, keyword advertising permits attorneys to disseminate truthful and helpful information to the public and, as a corollary, enables potential clients to locate qualified attorneys to assist them,” wrote Andrew Cevasco of Archer & Greiner and Thomas Loikith of Harwood Lloyd in a brief filed on behalf of the county bar. “However, use of a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword has the opposite effect—it allows the purchaser lawyer to benefit from an unfair and unwarranted association because it misleads the public.”

The Committee on Attorney Advertising, which also considered these inquiries, found that purchasing a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. It cited to RPC 7.1, which only applies to lawyers’ “communications.” That committee concluded that the purchase of a competitor lawyer’s name is not, in and of itself, a “communication.”

Similarly, the ACPE determined that RPC 1.4 did not apply in this situation. RPC 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. “There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword and a person searching on the Internet.” See ACPE Opinion #735, p. 2.

For a full copy of Opinion 735, visit NJcourts.gov.The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that looks at whether it is appropriate to permit lawyers to purchase a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword in an internet search as part of a search engine’s ad campaign in order to promote the lawyer’s law firm.

The New Jersey State Bar Association petitioned for review because it argued the practice “condones gamesmanship over professionalism.”

The NJSBA urged the Court to review Opinion Number 735 by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), which opined that the practice does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The brief was written by NJSBA member Bonnie C. Frost, of Einhorn Barbarito.

Read the brief in support of petition to review here. Read the brief in response to brief and appendix here.

“The NJSBA believes a critical question exists about whether it is ethical for one lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name for the purpose of a keyword search, thereby capitalizing on someone else’s goodwill and reputation,” said the NJSBA in the brief if filed with the Court seeking review. “While Opinion 735 attempts to answer that question, the NJSBA believes it is based on several presumptions which may not always be accurate and could yield questionable conclusions.”

The opinion, issued last June, analyzed whether a lawyer is permitted to purchase certain keywords or phrases as part of the lawyer’s advertising so that his or her law firm appears in the search results. The ACPE further analyzed whether a lawyer may insert or pay the internet search engine company to insert a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user from the website originally searched to the lawyer’s own law firm website. While the ACPE found that inserting a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer’s name that diverts the user to the first lawyer’s website violates RPC 8.4(c), it found that the purchase of keywords or phrases that lead the user to a competitor lawyer “does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ACPE opined that this activity did not violate RPC 8.4(c) or (d).

“The keyword purchaser’s website ordinarily will appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website, while the competitor lawyer’s website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website),” said the ACPE in its opinion. “The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or ‘sponsored’.” The NJSBA took issue with this analysis, questioning whether the consumer understands the distinction between sponsored and organic search results.

The Bergen County Bar Association joined the NJSBA in urging the Court to review the opinion. “When used ethically and honestly, keyword advertising permits attorneys to disseminate truthful and helpful information to the public and, as a corollary, enables potential clients to locate qualified attorneys to assist them,” wrote Andrew Cevasco of Archer & Greiner and Thomas Loikith of Harwood Lloyd in a brief filed on behalf of the county bar. “However, use of a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword has the opposite effect—it allows the purchaser lawyer to benefit from an unfair and unwarranted association because it misleads the public.”

The Committee on Attorney Advertising, which also considered these inquiries, found that purchasing a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. It cited to RPC 7.1, which only applies to lawyers’ “communications.” That committee concluded that the purchase of a competitor lawyer’s name is not, in and of itself, a “communication.”

Similarly, the ACPE determined that RPC 1.4 did not apply in this situation. RPC 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. “There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword and a person searching on the Internet.” See ACPE Opinion #735, p. 2.

For a full copy of Opinion 735, visit NJcourts.gov.The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that looks at whether it is appropriate to permit lawyers to purchase a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword in an internet search as part of a search engine’s ad campaign in order to promote the lawyer’s law firm.

The New Jersey State Bar Association petitioned for review because it argued the practice “condones gamesmanship over professionalism.”

The NJSBA urged the Court to review Opinion Number 735 by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), which opined that the practice does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The brief was written by NJSBA member Bonnie C. Frost, of Einhorn Barbarito.

Read the brief in support of petition to review here. Read the brief in response to brief and appendix here.

“The NJSBA believes a critical question exists about whether it is ethical for one lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name for the purpose of a keyword search, thereby capitalizing on someone else’s goodwill and reputation,” said the NJSBA in the brief if filed with the Court seeking review. “While Opinion 735 attempts to answer that question, the NJSBA believes it is based on several presumptions which may not always be accurate and could yield questionable conclusions.”

The opinion, issued last June, analyzed whether a lawyer is permitted to purchase certain keywords or phrases as part of the lawyer’s advertising so that his or her law firm appears in the search results. The ACPE further analyzed whether a lawyer may insert or pay the internet search engine company to insert a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user from the website originally searched to the lawyer’s own law firm website. While the ACPE found that inserting a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer’s name that diverts the user to the first lawyer’s website violates RPC 8.4(c), it found that the purchase of keywords or phrases that lead the user to a competitor lawyer “does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ACPE opined that this activity did not violate RPC 8.4(c) or (d).

“The keyword purchaser’s website ordinarily will appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website, while the competitor lawyer’s website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website),” said the ACPE in its opinion. “The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or ‘sponsored’.” The NJSBA took issue with this analysis, questioning whether the consumer understands the distinction between sponsored and organic search results.

The Bergen County Bar Association joined the NJSBA in urging the Court to review the opinion. “When used ethically and honestly, keyword advertising permits attorneys to disseminate truthful and helpful information to the public and, as a corollary, enables potential clients to locate qualified attorneys to assist them,” wrote Andrew Cevasco of Archer & Greiner and Thomas Loikith of Harwood Lloyd in a brief filed on behalf of the county bar. “However, use of a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword has the opposite effect—it allows the purchaser lawyer to benefit from an unfair and unwarranted association because it misleads the public.”

The Committee on Attorney Advertising, which also considered these inquiries, found that purchasing a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. It cited to RPC 7.1, which only applies to lawyers’ “communications.” That committee concluded that the purchase of a competitor lawyer’s name is not, in and of itself, a “communication.”

Similarly, the ACPE determined that RPC 1.4 did not apply in this situation. RPC 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. “There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword and a person searching on the Internet.” See ACPE Opinion #735, p. 2.

For a full copy of Opinion 735, visit NJcourts.gov.The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that looks at whether it is appropriate to permit lawyers to purchase a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword in an internet search as part of a search engine’s ad campaign in order to promote the lawyer’s law firm.

The New Jersey State Bar Association petitioned for review because it argued the practice “condones gamesmanship over professionalism.”

The NJSBA urged the Court to review Opinion Number 735 by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), which opined that the practice does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The brief was written by NJSBA member Bonnie C. Frost, of Einhorn Barbarito.

Read the brief in support of petition to review here. Read the brief in response to brief and appendix here.

“The NJSBA believes a critical question exists about whether it is ethical for one lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name for the purpose of a keyword search, thereby capitalizing on someone else’s goodwill and reputation,” said the NJSBA in the brief if filed with the Court seeking review. “While Opinion 735 attempts to answer that question, the NJSBA believes it is based on several presumptions which may not always be accurate and could yield questionable conclusions.”

The opinion, issued last June, analyzed whether a lawyer is permitted to purchase certain keywords or phrases as part of the lawyer’s advertising so that his or her law firm appears in the search results. The ACPE further analyzed whether a lawyer may insert or pay the internet search engine company to insert a hyperlink on the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user from the website originally searched to the lawyer’s own law firm website. While the ACPE found that inserting a hyperlink on a competitor lawyer’s name that diverts the user to the first lawyer’s website violates RPC 8.4(c), it found that the purchase of keywords or phrases that lead the user to a competitor lawyer “does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is not conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ACPE opined that this activity did not violate RPC 8.4(c) or (d).

“The keyword purchaser’s website ordinarily will appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website, while the competitor lawyer’s website will appear in the organic results (unless the competitor has purchased the same keyword, in which case it will also appear as a paid or ‘sponsored’ website),” said the ACPE in its opinion. “The user can choose which website to select and the search engine ordinarily will mark the keyword-purchased website as paid or ‘sponsored’.” The NJSBA took issue with this analysis, questioning whether the consumer understands the distinction between sponsored and organic search results.

The Bergen County Bar Association joined the NJSBA in urging the Court to review the opinion. “When used ethically and honestly, keyword advertising permits attorneys to disseminate truthful and helpful information to the public and, as a corollary, enables potential clients to locate qualified attorneys to assist them,” wrote Andrew Cevasco of Archer & Greiner and Thomas Loikith of Harwood Lloyd in a brief filed on behalf of the county bar. “However, use of a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword has the opposite effect—it allows the purchaser lawyer to benefit from an unfair and unwarranted association because it misleads the public.”

The Committee on Attorney Advertising, which also considered these inquiries, found that purchasing a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword does not violate the rules governing attorney advertising. It cited to RPC 7.1, which only applies to lawyers’ “communications.” That committee concluded that the purchase of a competitor lawyer’s name is not, in and of itself, a “communication.”

Similarly, the ACPE determined that RPC 1.4 did not apply in this situation. RPC 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall inform a prospective client of how, when and where the client may communicate with the lawyer. “There is no interaction, much less communication, between the lawyer who purchases a competitor lawyer’s name as a keyword and a person searching on the Internet.” See ACPE Opinion #735, p. 2.

For a full copy of Opinion 735, visit NJcourts.gov.

Contact: NJSBA Communications Department
Tel: 732-937-7527
Email: [email protected]

About


Founded in 1899, the NJSBA is the largest organization of attorneys, judges and legal professionals in New Jersey. At the core of our mission is improving the lives of our members, advancing the rule of law and serving as the voice of the profession. With 85 sections and committees, the NJSBA allows attorneys to benefit from being part of the most wide-reaching legal association in the state, while still cultivating expertise and building networks within specialized practice areas.

MORE ABOUT NJSBA

Diversity


The New Jersey State Bar Association is committed to promoting and fostering a diverse and inclusive bar association. The Association recognizes that the broad concept of diversity includes race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, age and disability. The NJSBA fosters and promotes an inclusive environment that gives value to the unique contributions of diverse individuals and organizations in all aspects of the Association.

Learn More

Advocacy


The NJSBA Legal and  Government Affairs Department serves as the liaison between NJSBA members and the state’s three branches of government.

Directions

The New Jersey Law Center is located at 1 Constitution Sq, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901. Need directions to the Law Center? Click on the button below to get started right away.

Contact NJSBA

NJSBA Contact Us Form
If you're looking for an attorney, click here for help.

If you cannot afford an attorney and have a civil matter, click here for Legal Services of New Jersey.

Looking for information about a specific lawyer? Contact the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection at 855-533-3863.

Have a complaint about a lawyer? Visit the Office of Attorney Ethics website. Select “Attorney Discipline” from the navigation bar for discipline of attorneys.

Contact Info

One Constitution Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901

732-249-5000
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday - Friday

Fax 732-249-2815

Email us

NJSBA Meetings and Events Calendar


From section, committee and division meetings with valuable CLE credit, to receptions and dinners and special events, the New Jersey State Bar Association regularly holds meetings so our members can meet their mandatory CLE requirements and network with the state’s largest attorney membership.

View Calendar

2024 Annual Meeting & Convention


The New Jersey State Bar Association is thrilled to announce the 2024 Annual Meeting & Convention will be held at the Borgata Hotel, Casino & Spa May 15-17

For more information, or to register today, visit the links below:

View more information

2024 Mid-Year Meeting


The New Jersey State Bar Association is thrilled to announce the 2024 Mid-Year Meeting will be held at The Shelbourne Hotel, Nov. 2-9

For more information, or to register today, visit the links below:

View more information

Practice HQ Training Events


Lawyers aren't taught practice management skills, and the NJSBA is here to fill the gap — no matter whether you are just starting out, mid-career or thinking about wrapping up their practices. Our PracitceHQ is here to help with webinars, informative articles, free consultations, comparison charts and so much more.

Practice HQ Training Events

Decisis


The new NJSBA member benefit Decisis will help you level-up your legal research.

Decisis gives members access to a robust database of local and federal case law is necessary information often used to structure your case. Decisis provides industry-leading tools to make legal research easier and more intuitive, and it’s a free benefit to all active New Jersey State Bar Association members.

Decisis Training Events

Networking Events


The NJSBA provides a host of networking events so members can maintain relationships with existing colleagues and make new connects. Join us at a baseball game, the hockey arena, for a community service project, or another event.

Upcoming Networking Events

Benefits Of Membership


As a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA), you will join a powerful network of 16,000 legal professionals across the state of New Jersey. NJSBA membership grants you access to year-round virtual and in-person networking events, leadership and professional development opportunities, member-only discounts, educational resources to help you stay in the know and much more!

Practice Management Tools


The NJSBA provides tools lawyers need to improve their practice, from our comprehensive PracticeHQ library of resources; a career center to find your next colleague or opportunity; an intuitive and high-powered legal research platform; and a robust Member Assistance Program to connect members, and those who live in their households, with experienced counselors and resources to address mental health needs.

 

Advocacy


As an NJSBA member, you'll become part of the collective power of the NJSBA network, giving you the ability to influence legislation and caselaw in New Jersey. Let’s work together to shape the future and solve critical issues facing attorneys and the public.

Become a Member Today!

Networking


Membership helps you build and maintain a powerful network through our in-person and online events with attorneys all over the state.

 

Become a Member Today!

Become A Partner Organization


The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) offers an exclusive partnership opportunity to amplify your organization’s impact and drive success. By harnessing the power of the NJSBA legal community, you can connect with our vibrant network of 16,000 legal professionals from 35+ different areas of practice, unlocking unparalleled opportunities for growth and achievement.

 

News and Press Publications


Learn more about the accomplishments of the Association, its members and events from regular news updates, press releases, and our award-winning magazine.


 

Reports


Read the comments, reports, resolutions and Board of Trustee news from the state’s largest organization of lawyers, judges and legal professionals.


 

Statements and Positions


The NJSBA is the voice of the profession and takes public positions on a range of issues with the legal community and government officials. It also takes positions on legislation and files friend-of-the-court briefs on matters that impact the profession. 

Photo Galleries


Check out photos from recent NJSBA events.

View Photo Albums

You do not have permission to view this form.