RI-369
December 1, 2016
SYLLABUS
Internet domain names and website addresses are a form of public communication concerning legal services that must comply with MRPC 7.1.
References: MRPC 7.1; RI-276; RI-341
TEXT
The inquirer asks whether Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 7.1 governs the use of Internet domain names. In the examples referenced by the inquirer, the Internet domain names are not the name of the law firm; instead, the web address is used in order to influence the Internet search results on search engines such as Google and Bing to more readily capture the attention of prospective clients.
It is the opinion of the Committee that domain names and web addresses are a form of public communication that must comply with MRPC 7.1, which provides, in pertinent part:
A lawyer may . . . use or participate in the use of any form of public communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive.
A [lawyer's] communication [with the public concerning legal services] shall not:
(a) contain a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omit a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;
(b) be likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or state or imply that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or
(c) compare the lawyers' services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.
The Committee has previously addressed similar forms of public communication by lawyers for compliance with MRPC 7.1. In RI-276, the Committee considered three forms of Internet communications, emails, static advertising posted to a website, and interactive Internet conversations via chat rooms or other web-based live forms of communication. The Committee opined in RI-276, "all forms of communication about lawyer services are governed by ethics rules, regardless of whether they are in person, on paper, billboard, telephone, fax, computer or otherwise."
The Committee's opinion that domain names are subject to MRPC 7.1 comports with a majority of jurisdictions that already have addressed the issue. For example, the New York Bar Ethics Committee stated in Formal Opinion 2003-01 that a lawyer's "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." Similarly, the Arizona Bar Ethics Committee in Ethics Opinion 01-05 stated that Rule 7.1 applies to all communications about a lawyer's services, including website and domain names. The Arizona opinion concluded that a domain name that included "countybar.com" violated Rule 7.1 on the basis that it "erroneously suggest[ed] that this private law firm ha[d] some special affiliation with the local bar association."
This opinion is in harmony with these other jurisdictions; further, it is harmonious with our earlier opinion in RI-341, in which the Committee opined that a lawyer listed as a "Super Lawyer" in the publication "Michigan Super Lawyers" could refer to this listing in advertising that otherwise comported with MRPC 7.1.1 RI-341 was based on the fact that "the lawyer state[d] truthfully that he [wa]s listed in the specific publication (e.g., "2006 Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers Magazine")," which in essence communicated to the public "that he [wa]s thus included among those whom other lawyers have called the best; but [he did] not state that[,]because he [wa]s so listed, he [wa]s the best, or super." On the contrary, using the domain name "superlawyer" would implicate MRPC 7.1 by implying that the lawyer is "super" and may violate the rule depending on the particular context in which it is used.
Lawyers must comply with MRPC 7.1 when they communicate with the public regardless of the medium (i.e. print advertisements, domain names, direct electronic communications, information on websites, print or electronic newsletters, blogs, etc.), all of which are governed by the same standard of MRPC 7.1.
In conclusion, Internet domain names and website addresses are a form of public communication concerning legal services that must comply with MRPC 7.1.
1 RI-341 was based upon the Committee's finding that Michigan Super Lawyers complied with the following:
- The rating or certifying organization ha[d] made inquiry into the lawyer's qualifications, and considered those qualifications in selecting the lawyer for inclusion.
- The rating or certification [wa]s issued discriminately. In the case of Super Lawyers, listing is limited to the top 5% of lawyers in the state measured by a selection system uniformly applied.
- The rating or certification [wa]s not issued for a price; it [was] not . . . bought or conditioned on purchase of a book, plaque, or other goods.
- The rating or certifying organization provide[d] a basis on which a consumer c[ould] reasonably determine how much value to place in the listing or certification.
- The basis of selection [was] verifiable. That is, if peer review [wa]s claimed, it [was] verifiable that it was conducted.