BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
NJSBA urges reconsideration of professional ethics opinion on attorney advertising regarding online ad buys
July 20, 2020 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
Association urges a reconsideration of professional ethics opinion on attorney advertising about online ad buys
A supplemental briefing submitted by the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) following the Supreme Court's grant of the organization's petition for review, urges the Court to reconsider findings in the opinion rendered by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics 735 (ACPE 735), finding that an attorney can purchase a hyperlink in the name of a competitor lawyer to divert the user directly to the purchasing lawyer's website. An inquiry was made to the committee last year as to whether this practice violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee found there was no violation. The Bergen County Bar Association filed a challenge to this finding last year as well, and both petitions for review were granted, permitting additional briefs to be submitted.
The NJSBA argued that the opinion focused on the practice permitting an attorney to pay for an indirect communication that misleads a consumer, rather than the actual website containing the searched name. In finding that this was not a violation, the committee found that this act was not a "communication" and therefore fell outside the scope of RPC 8.4, addressing misconduct and prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, or conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Relying on RPC 7.1, the NJSBA said that "[w]hile a purchasing attorney is not directly communicating misleading information to a consumer, they are indirectly doing so by using their purchasing power to engage the internet browser to lead the consumer to their own website over the website of the actual attorney being searched."
The NJSBA urged the Supreme Court to consider the higher ethical standards to which attorneys are held and the unfair advantage a purchasing attorney obtains in being permitted to capitalize on the good name of another attorney's good reputation. "An attorney's good name and reputation are their lifeblood," the NJSBA wrote in its brief. "Many attorneys spend their entire career building a reputation for outstanding counsel and advocacy on behalf of their clients, and they rely on repeat business based on the value of their good name and reputation."
The NJSBA urged the Supreme Court to decline to adopt the conclusions within ACPE 735 and instead to engage in a wide-ranging review of the advertising possibilities now available as a result of evolving technology.
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.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250