complying with the advertising rules when … · when promoting your practice on the internet debra...
TRANSCRIPT
COMPLYING WITH THE ADVERTISING RULES
WHEN PROMOTING YOUR PRACTICE ON THE INTERNET
DEBRA L. BRUCE, JD, PCC
Lawyer-Coach LLC
848 Little John Lane
Houston, Texas 77024-3609
(713) 682-4353
D. TODD SMITH
Smith Law Group, P.C.
1250 Capital of Texas Highway South
Three Cielo Center, Suite 601
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 439-3230
State Bar of Texas
24th
ANNUAL
ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURSE
June 7-8, 2012
Austin
CHAPTER 11
Debra L. Bruce is President of Lawyer-Coach LLC, which provides executive coaching and training, customized for the needs of lawyers, law firms and legal departments. Topics include leadership, team effectiveness, time management, business development and social media. Debra is a frequent speaker and writer on law practice management topics. She practiced law for 18 years before becoming the first lawyer in Texas credentialed by the International Coach Federation. She has served as the Vice Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the State Bar of Texas and the Chair of the HBA Law Practice Management Section, as well as the leader of the Houston chapter of the International Coach Federation.
D. Todd Smith is the founder and president of the Smith Law Group,
P.C., a civil appellate boutique with offices in Austin and McAllen, Texas.
He launched the firm in 2006 after spending nearly a decade in the Dallas
and Austin offices of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., where he was a
member of the appellate and litigation practice groups.
Smith earned degrees from Texas Christian University, Texas Tech
University, and St. Mary’s University School of Law, where he was
editor-in-chief of the St. Mary’s Law Journal. Before joining Fulbright,
he served a two-year clerkship with Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul A. Gonzalez.
Smith has a statewide practice representing plaintiffs and defendants in all phases of civil appeals
and original proceedings. He has handled cases before most of the fourteen intermediate Texas
appellate courts, the Texas Supreme Court, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth,
Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. He is also admitted to the United States Supreme Court bar.
A significant part of Smith's practice takes place in trial courts, where he advises other lawyers
and their clients and often serves as additional counsel of record. When engaged as a litigation
consultant, he assists trial counsel with strategic analysis and briefing, jury charges, and
potentially dispositive motions, all with a focus on preserving error and positioning cases for
appellate review.
A committed bar leader, Smith has chaired the Austin Bar Association's Civil Appellate Law and
Solo/Small Firm Sections and recently won election to the ABA Board of Directors. He also
serves on the State Bar Appellate Section’s governing council and is former editor of its flagship
publication, The Appellate Advocate. He is a fellow of both the Texas Bar and Austin Bar
Foundations and serves on the St. Mary’s Law Alumni Board of Directors.
Smith is a regular author and speaker on appellate-related topics and teaches an appellate
practice and procedure course at Solo Practice University, an online resource for law students
and lawyers looking to start their own firms. He is the creator and publisher of the Texas
Appellate Law Blog (www.texasappellatelawblog.com), the first website of its kind to focus on
Texas appellate practice, and was among the first Texas lawyers to use social media as a tool for
marketing his practice.
Smith is certified as a specialist in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal
Specialization. In 2011, he was recognized as a Fifth Circuit litigation star in Benchmark
Appellate: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys. The
same publication listed Smith Law Group as a recommended Fifth Circuit litigation firm.
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
II. REVISED INTERPRETIVE COMMENT 17 ......................................................................................................... 1
III. FILING REQUIREMENTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILES ........................................................................... 1
A. General Observations ....................................................................................................................................... 1
B. How Is Texas Bar Circle Different? ................................................................................................................. 2
C. What About Blogs? .......................................................................................................................................... 2
D. Must YouTube or Other Internet Videos Be Filed with Advertising Review? .................................................. 2
IV. OTHER ETHICAL ISSUES TO WATCH FOR ...................................................................................................... 3
A. LinkedIn “Recommendations” ......................................................................................................................... 3
B. Designating Specialties or Being Voted as an Expert on LinkedIn .................................................................. 3
C. Potential Problems with Status Updates ........................................................................................................... 3
1. Solicitation by regulated electronic contact ................................................................................................. 3
2. Breaching client confidentiality ................................................................................................................... 3
3. Ex parte communications ............................................................................................................................. 3
4. Pretexting ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Lack of candor toward the tribunal .............................................................................................................. 4
V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
1
COMPLYING WITH ADVERTISING
RULES WHEN PROMOTING YOUR
PRACTICE ON THE INTERNET
I. INTRODUCTION An increasing number of Texas attorneys and law
firms are using social media sites to enhance their
Internet presences. Although many lawyers have
embraced social media as part of a broader marketing
strategy, others have hesitated for fear of crossing a
murky line somewhere in Part VII of the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct—the
advertising and solicitation rules.1
This article attempts to bring some clarity by
answering common questions about lawyers’ use of
social media2 and warning about the danger zones they
must navigate. In doing so, the article considers the
State Bar Advertising Review Committee’s latest
revision to Interpretive Comment 17, which is among
several comments designed to assist the Advertising
Review Department in determining whether specific
communications comply with Part VII of the
Disciplinary Rules.
II. REVISED INTERPRETIVE COMMENT 17
In 2005, the Texas Supreme Court broadened the
advertising and solicitation rules to include an
attorney’s electronic or digital communications. Since
then, interactive web-based communication tools have
developed at a rapid pace. As revised in 2010, the new
version of Interpretive Comment 17 was intended to
address issues with different kinds of Internet
advertisements, from websites and social media
websites to web-based display ads and blogs.
A side-by-side comparison reveals the differences
between the revised comment and the previous version,
last updated in 2003. Some changes—such as a new
emphasis on an “electronic communication” as the
triggering event—appear to update the comment’s
terminology to fit the times. The most significant
revisions involve entirely new sections focusing
specifically on social media sites and blogs and a
substantially rewritten section on filing requirements.
See generally State Bar Advertising Committee
1 The Advertising Review Rules, Interpretive Comments,
Ethics Opinions, and other resources are available at
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Adver
tising_Review.
2 The term “social media” encompasses many different
applications, but this article focuses primarily on five social
media sites frequently used by Texas lawyers: Facebook,
LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, and Texas Bar Circle.
Google+ is comparable to Facebook, but not as well
established.
Interpretive Comment 17 (Appendix A).
Regarding social media sites, the revised comment
states: “Landing pages such as those on Facebook,
Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. where the landing page is
generally available to the public are advertisements.
Where access is limited to existing clients and personal
friends, filing with the Advertising Review Department
is not required.” Interpretive Comment 17(C).
The revision has this to say about blogs: “Blogs or
status updates considered to be educational or
informational in nature are not required to be filed with
the Advertising Review Department. However,
attorneys should be careful to ensure that such postings
do not meet the definition of an advertisement subject
to the filing requirements.” Interpretive Comment
17(D).
The revision also clarified that the form of the
electronic communication is irrelevant: “Regardless of
the form of the electronic communication described in
this interpretive comment, the content, including words,
sounds, and images, shall conform to the requirements
of [P]art VII of the [Disciplinary Rules].” Interpretive
Comment 17(E).
Finally, with respect to filing requirements, the
revised comment states: “Electronic communications
described in this interpretative comment are
advertisements in the public media subject to the filing
requirements of Rule 7.07 unless exempt thereunder. It
is the communicating attorney’s responsibility to
demonstrate that any particular online communication
need not be filed with the Committee.” Interpretive
Comment No. 17(G). We will address that matter first.
III. FILING REQUIREMENTS AND SOCIAL
MEDIA PROFILES
A. General Observations
As the revised comment indicates, Disciplinary
Rule 7.07 addresses the filing requirements for public
advertisements and written, recorded, electronic or
other digital solicitations. Rule 7.07(c) requires a
lawyer’s website to be filed, unless it is limited to
certain exempt information enumerated in Rule 7.07(e).
Sometimes called a “tombstone advertisement,” the
exemptions include contact information, dates of
admission to the bar, areas of practice, acceptance of
credit cards, languages spoken, and other specified
information. Although the revised comment treats
social media profiles as advertisements, even the
previous version clarified that “a lawyer or law firm’s
listing on a web-based directory that is accessible by
the public shall be exempt from the filing requirements
of Rule 7.07 if it meets the requirements of 7.07(e)(1).”
To this extent, Interpretive Comment 17 seems to have
brought about no significant change.
Clearly, a social media profile containing only
information exempt under Rule 7.07(e) need not be
filed. Facebook, LinkedIn and Texas Bar Circle request
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
2
educational history, however, and LinkedIn also
requests employment history. Those categories are not
specifically exempted pursuant to Rule 7.07(e).
Lawyers could choose not to include that information in
their profiles, but they would lose much of the value
provided by LinkedIn and Facebook. Social media sites
use that information to suggest people you may know
and want to connect to or “friend.” Additionally, your
former classmates and colleagues use that information
to find you or to distinguish your profile from that of
someone with a similar name.
Gene Major, the Director of the Advertising
Review Department of the State Bar of Texas, has
provided some reassurance on this issue since before
Interpretive Comment 17 was revised. In interviews,
CLE presentations, and articles, Major has consistently
affirmed that that the Advertising Review Committee
and the Advertising Review Department support Texas
lawyers’ use of technology, including social media, to
disseminate information about their services. E.g.,
Gene Major, The Effective Use of Social Media Within
the Texas Advertising Rules, 73 Tex. B.J. 530 (July
2010). Major asserts that attorneys can include their
true and factual educational background in their social
media profiles without triggering a filing requirement.
Id. at 531. He points to the language in authoritative
Comment 8 to Rule 7.02. The comment states that Rule
7.02’s prohibitions against false or misleading
communications do not prohibit communications about
various listed topics (some of which are not contained
in the Rule 7.07(e) list), “and other truthful information
that might invite the attention of those seeking legal
assistance.” He reads Rules 7.02 and 7.07 together to
discern the intent of the advertising rules.
The authoritative comments to the Texas
disciplinary rules include other indications that the
advertising rules were not intended to regulate the kind
of ordinary information included in a social media
profile. Rule 7.04 sets forth requirements relating to
advertisements. Comment 6 to Rule 7.04 references
basic factual information about a lawyer that we might
call a “tombstone advertisement,” and asserts that “the
content of such advertisements is not the kind of
information intended to be regulated by Rule 7.04(b).”
Probably the greatest comfort lies in authoritative
Comment 6 to Rule 7.07. It reminds us that
“communications need not be filed at all if they were
not prepared to secure paid professional employment.”
Using social media to build and enhance relationships
and to engage in discussions about topics of interest can
be distinguished from advertisement or solicitation. A
different conclusion would be reached, however, if a
lawyer’s profile said “Call me if you have been
injured,” and set forth prior successes. Those factors
would indicate a solicitation for professional
employment that had the potential to be misleading, and
therefore would be subject to regulation.
If you still are not comfortable, go ahead and file
your profile with the Advertising Review Department.
They report that they have received filings of LinkedIn
profiles from a few lawyers. Under Rule 7.07(d), if a
lawyer submits an advertisement or a solicitation
communication for pre-approval, a finding of
compliance is binding in the lawyer’s favor.
B. How Is Texas Bar Circle Different?
In contrast to other social media, Texas Bar Circle
is restricted to members of the State Bar of Texas. Rule
7.04(a)(3) permits lawyers to distribute to other lawyers
and publish in legal directories and legal newspapers
(whether written or electronic) their availability and
other information traditionally included in such
publications. Therefore, lawyers have more latitude on
Texas Bar Circle than on other social media.
C. What About Blogs?
Blogs usually consist of commentary or
educational information, rather than
advertisements and solicitations, and therefore
would not trigger a filing requirement. Comment 6
to Rule 7.07 references the intention of the
advertising rules to “protect the first amendment
rights of lawyers while ensuring the right of the
public to be free from misleading advertising and
the right of the Texas legal profession to maintain
its integrity.” Comment 1 to Rule 7.02 clarifies
that the rules “are not intended to affect other
forms of speech by lawyers, such as political
advertisements or political commentary.” Gene Major has stated, “Blogging has become a
very effective form of communication for attorneys to
get out information regarding, not necessarily
themselves, but specifically about the subject matter or
the events relating to their area of practice. Attorneys
who use blogs effectively are using them to
communicate information that is either editorial or
informational in its nature and its tone. That sort of
blog, as long as it’s editorial or informative or
educational, would be exempt from filing
requirements.” He cautions, however, that exemption
from filing does not mean exemption from the
prohibition against false, misleading, or deceptive
communications on which the advertising rules turn.
D. Must YouTube or Other Internet Videos Be
Filed with Advertising Review?
Filing online videos is not required per se, but if a
video goes beyond strictly educational, informational or
entertainment content to solicit business, it constitutes
advertising and must be filed. Gene Major says that
merely including an attorney’s contact information on
an educational video would not constitute
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
3
advertisement. So many lawyers go beyond the pale,
however, that the Advertising Review Department
posted this warning on their website before Interpretive
Comment 17 was amended:
Attorney or law firm videos disseminated on
video sharing websites such as YouTube,
MySpace or Facebook that solicit legal
services are considered public media
advertisements and are required to be filed
with the Advertising Review Committee,
unless exempted by Rule 7.07(e), TDRPC.
After the amendment, the catch-all provision
incorporating all forms of electronic communication,
“including words, sounds, and images” clearly brings
online videos within Part VII, subject to the Rule
7.07(e) exemptions. See Interpretive Comment 17(E).
IV. OTHER ETHICAL ISSUES TO WATCH FOR
A. LinkedIn “Recommendations”
Some states prohibit the use of testimonials, but
Texas does not. On LinkedIn, one can prescreen
recommendations (even unsolicited and unexpected
ones) before they get posted for public view. Take
advantage of that feature and make sure any
recommendations comply with the disciplinary rules.
For example, Rule 7.02(4) prohibits comparisons to
other lawyers’ services, unless substantiated by
verifiable objective data. Therefore, if your client
enthusiastically reports that you are “the best trial
lawyer in town,” you will need to diplomatically ask for
a revision before publication.
Lawyers would be well advised to avoid making
reciprocal recommendations, where the lawyer agrees
to post a recommendation in exchange for receiving
one. Rule 7.03(b) prohibits giving anything of value to
a non-lawyer for soliciting prospective clients.
B. Designating Specialties or Being Voted as an
Expert on LinkedIn
A LinkedIn profile has a field for “specialties.”
Unless you are board-certified by the Texas Board of
Legal Specialization, you should leave it blank. Rule
7.04(b)(2) prohibits a statement in an advertisement that
a lawyer has been designated by an organization as
possessing special competence, unless the organization
meets the requirements of that rule, which LinkedIn
does not.
The area accessed through the “Answers” button
in the LinkedIn toolbar can also pose problems. You
can ask questions in various categories, or respond to
them there. The readers vote on the best responses
posted. When you accrue a number of best response
votes, LinkedIn automatically designates you an
“Expert” in that category. Such expert designation
without board certification contravenes Rule 7.04(b)(2)
in an advertisement. Although your LinkedIn profile
may not be deemed an advertisement, the cautious
course would be to avoid answering questions in the
Answers section.
You can, however, demonstrate your knowledge
and build relationships by answering questions in
LinkedIn discussion groups that you join. There is not
an Expert designation or “best answer” feature in the
discussion groups.
C. Potential Problems with Status Updates
Social media platforms generally allow users to
post “status updates” consisting of relatively short
blurbs of information. The new Interpretive Comment
17 treats status updates as advertisements, but handles
them the same as blog posts: they need not be filed as
long as they are educational or informational in nature.
Identified below are some more specific issues
associated with status updates.
1. Solicitation by regulated electronic contact
Interactivity constitutes a defining element of all
social media. Twitter, however, has such open
conversation and rapid response time that a lawyer must
keep Rule 7.03(a) in mind. That rule forbids using
“regulated telephone or other electronic contact” to
solicit business arising out of a particular occurrence or
event from someone who hasn’t sought the lawyer’s
advice. Rule 7.03(f) defines “regulated electronic
contact” to include electronic communication initiated
in a “live, interactive manner.” Comment 1 to Rule 7.03
specifically references chat rooms, and both Facebook
and Twitter sometimes resemble chat room
conversation.
By way of illustration, when someone tweeted on
Twitter that she just got a DUI, a lawyer responded to
her: “If you are looking for a DUI lawyer, I can give
you my Twitter big break on fees…email me.” Unless
the lawyer already had the requisite prior relationship
with the tweeter, that contact may violate Rule 7.03.
On another occasion, a different person tweeted,
“Just got out of the Cobb County jail. Anyone know a
good inexpensive DUI lawyer?” The foregoing
response to this tweet probably would not violate Rule
7.03 because the tweeter asked for a lawyer.
2. Breaching client confidentiality
The casual nature of social media can lure
attorneys into unintentionally breaching client
confidentiality. In a tweet a lawyer wrote, “Just talked
to my client who totally lied to me about all the facts.”
Since the date and time of the tweet gets posted, it has
the potential of revealing information to someone who
knew who was meeting with the lawyer that day.
3. Ex parte communications
According to a public reprimand accessible at
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
4
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/jsc/publicre
primands/jsc08-234.pdf, a North Carolina judge
engaged in unethical Facebook activity relating to a
case being tried before him. During a child custody
case, District Judge B. Carlton Terry Jr. “friended”
defense counsel, and each of them discussed aspects of
the case on Facebook, constituting ex parte
communications. Plaintiff’s counsel had indicated she
was not on Facebook. The judge also conducted ex
parte online research about the plaintiff by Googling
her and visiting her website.
4. Pretexting
Many lawyers have discovered useful information
about a litigation party or witness in their postings on
social media. Due to privacy settings, sometimes
valuable information would not be visible to the public
in general, but would be visible to hundreds of
“friends” of the target on Facebook or another media.
Lawyers may be tempted to disguise their identity to
“friend” the target, or to ask someone else to “friend”
the target and share what they see. That is often referred
to as “pretexting” because it involves getting
information by way of a pretext or false pretenses.
While there has not been a case or opinion
published in Texas directly relating to pretexting in
social media, in March 2009, the Philadelphia Bar
Association issued an opinion that provides guidance.
See Philadelphia Bar Association, Professional
Guidance Committee: Opinion 2009-02, accessible at
http://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBARead
Only.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResourc
es/Opinion_2009-2.pdf. The inquirer proposed to have
a third party ask to friend a witness on Facebook and
MySpace to gain information to impeach the witness.
The opinion cited provisions of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Professional Conduct that correspond to Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 4.01,
8.04(a)(1) and (3), and 5.03(b). The Committee said
that such pretexting would involve dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation on behalf of the lawyer, or
the encouragement of such behavior, in violation of the
aforementioned rules.
Any lawyer seeking investigative information
about a party or witness through social media would be
wise to review the Philadelphia opinion and the Texas
rules referenced, for ethical guidance.
5. Lack of candor toward the tribunal
Rule 3.03(a)(1) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly
making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal.
Many judges report incidents where lawyers have made
statements in court that do not align with their recent
Facebook status updates. For example, Judge Susan
Criss of Galveston recounted to an ABA audience that a
lawyer who had friended her on Facebook posted a
string of Facebook updates about drinking and partying.
Then the lawyer told Judge Criss in court that she
needed a continuance because her father had passed
away. Molly McDonough, Facebooking Judge Catches
Lawyer in a Lie, Sees Ethical Breaches,
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebooking_j
udge_catches_lawyers_in_lies_crossing_ethical_lines_a
bachicago. Judge Alexandra Smoots-Hogan of Houston
has had similar experiences. “Lawyers, I read
Facebook!” she admonishes.
V. CONCLUSION
Interpretive Comment 17 leaves open the
possibility that the Advertising Review Department
may view legal-related posts beyond those that are
educational or informational as advertisements or
solicitations. Those hoping that the new version would
provide a litmus test for social media and blogs will no
doubt be disappointed. As a practical matter, the
comment simply steers lawyers back to the disciplinary
rules to guide their decisions about what they post on
the Internet. The medium may have changed, but how
the State Bar views communications between lawyers
and the public has stayed the same.
From the beginning, blogging and social media
advocates have cautioned lawyers against blatantly
selling themselves or their services. Doing so
diminishes the real value these tools are capable of
delivering: establishing or enhancing one’s reputation
as an expert in a particular field, relationship-building,
and generating goodwill. When done right, there are no
inconsistencies between social media and the
fundamental goal behind the disciplinary rules:
protecting the public against false, misleading or
deceptive communications.
17. The Internet and Similar Services Including Home Pages. (March 1996, revised May 2003, Revised 2010) Part VII of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct applies to information disseminated digitally via the Internet. A digitally transmitted message that addresses the availability of a Texas lawyer’s services is a communication subject to Rule 7.02, and when published to the Internet, constitutes an advertisement in the public media.
A. Websites A website on the Internet that describes a lawyer, law firm or legal services rendered by them is an advertisement in the public media. For the purposes of Part VII of the TDRPC, “website” means a single or multiple page file, posted on a computer server, which describes a lawyer or law firm’s practice or qualifications, to which public access is provided through publication of a uniform resource locator (URL). Of the pages of a website subject to these rules, many may be accessible without use of the site’s own navigational tools. Of those pages, for the purpose of this Interpretative Comment, the “intended initial access page” is the page of the file on which navigational tools are displayed or, in the case that navigational tools are displayed on several pages, the page which provides the most comprehensive index capability on the site. The intended initial access page of a lawyer or law firm’s website shall include: 1) the name of the lawyer or law firm responsible for the content of the site 2) if areas of law are advertised or claims of special competence are made on the
intended initial access page or elsewhere on the site, a conspicuously displayed disclaimer regarding such claims in the language prescribed at Rule 7.04(b); and
3) the geographic location (city or town) in which the lawyer or law firm’s principal office is located. Publication of a link to a separate page bearing the required disclaimer or information required by Rule 7.04(b) does not satisfy this requirement.
B. Web-Based Display/Banner Ads An image or images displayed through the vehicle of an electronic communication is an advertisement in the public media if the ad describes a lawyer or law firm’s practice or qualifications, whether viewed independently or in conjunction with the page or pages reached by a viewer through links offered by the ad (“target page”). The content of a web-based display or banner ad will be viewed in conjunction with the target page.
C. Social Media Sites Landing pages such as those on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. where the landing page is generally available to the public are advertisements. Where access is limited to existing clients and personal friends, filing with the Advertising Review Department is not required.
D. Blogs Blogs or status updates considered to be educational or informational in nature are not required to be filed with the Advertising Review Department. However, attorneys should be careful to ensure that such postings do not meet the definition of an advertisement subject to the filing requirements.
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11
E. Compliance Regardless of the form of the electronic communication described in this interpretive comment, the content, including words, sound and images, shall conform to the requirements of part VII of the TDRPC.
F. Records Retention A printed copy of the electronic communication including, where applicable, intended initial access page, profile page, web-based display/banner ads and target page are subject to the retention requirements of Rule 7.04(f).
G. Filing Requirements Electronic communications described in this interpretative comment are advertisements in the public media subject to the filing requirements of Rule 7.07 unless exempt thereunder. It is the communicating attorney's responsibility to demonstrate that any particular online communication need not be filed with the Committee.
H. Web-Based Directories A lawyer or law firm’s listing on a web-based directory that is accessible by the public shall be exempt from the filing requirements of Rule 7.07 if it meets the requirements of 7.07(e).
I. Internet Domain Names Rule 7.01 prohibits lawyers and law firms from advertising or practicing under a trade name or a name that is false and misleading. Therefore, an internet domain name or URL may not be used as the name under which a lawyer or firm does business. A domain name that is a reasonable variation of the law firm name as permitted under Rule 7.01 or that is a description of the lawyer or law firm may be used as a locater or electronic address only if such use does not violate the provisions of 7.02.
Complying with the Advertising Rules When Promoting Your Practice on the Internet Chapter 11