The New Jersey State Bar Association urges an explicit comment be added to the Rules of Professional Conduct to address the practice of lawyers purchasing competitor lawyers’ names as a keyword for a search term. In Opinion No. 735, the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics concluded that lawyers can engage in the practice consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, but the NJSBA disagreed. Joined by the Bergen County Bar Association, the NJSBA asked the Supreme Court to review the opinion, suggesting the practice is misleading and violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). Now, the NJSBA urges an explicit comment to make it clear the practice is unethical.
“The NJSBA contends that the purchase of another attorney’s name for advertising use in connection with an internet search permits the purchasing attorney to improperly capitalize on the good will and reputation of the attorney whose name was purchased,” said NJSBA President Domenick Carmagnola to Superior Court Judge Jeffrey R. Jablonski.
Rather than changing RPC 8.4(c), a recommendation was made to add an explicit comment to the rule as follows:
It is a violation of RPC 8.4(c), representing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, for a lawyer to purchase another lawyer or law firm’s name as a keyword search term from internet search engines to use in the lawyer’s own keyword advertising. The purchase of the recognition and reputation associated with a lawyer’s name or law firm’s name to direct consumers to another lawyer’s website is neither fair nor straightforward and is misleading.
The Supreme Court appointed Jablonski special master on Oct. 1, 2021, to “research and consult empirical data on whether paid keyword advertisement search results are misleading to the average internet search engine user and whether the average internet search engine user is able to differentiate between paid keyword advertisement search results and organic search results.” Jablonski will issue a written report of his findings on the issues presented in the order and “may address and propose changes to the RPCs that relate to the keyword search term issue.”
NJSBA: Proposed amendment to rule governing municipal notices to witnesses needs clarification
New Jersey Rule 7:8-3, which governs notices of municipal court proceedings sent to witnesses, is inconsistently practiced among municipal courts and needs clarification, said Carmagnola. The letter to the Supreme Court pointed out that notices are sometimes sent to all witnesses upon request of counsel, which appears to be consistent with the rule. Other municipal courts will only provide notice to prosecution witnesses, according to the NJSBA.
“To address this inconsistency, and ensure there is uniform application throughout the state, the NJSBA proposes consideration of a Rule amendment explicitly requiring notices of municipal court proceedings to be sent to any witness upon request of counsel,” said Carmagnola.
The proposed new section to Rule 7:8-3 is as follows:
Upon written request by the state or defense, the court shall send mailed notices to both state and defense witnesses. This does not dispense with a duty to serve subpoenas.
With the addition of this language, the NJSBA asserts that the language “will help ensure that matters can proceed when scheduled with a fair opportunity to all sides to present their best case.”
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.