MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2002-18
Hypothetical necessity for including attorney’s name in Internet domain name
You have inquired whether an Internet domain name used by a Maryland attorney in the practice of law must include the attorney's name. You also cite several examples and ask whether they would comply with the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibits false or mis-leading communications about a lawyer's practice, especially if a descriptive phrase or contrived name (i.e., www.bestlawyer.com ) is used). Also, Rule 7.5 prohibits a lawyer from using a "professional designation" that violates Rule 7.1, and domain names may be regarded as such professional designations.
The Committee is of the opinion that the absence of an attorney's name from his or her domain name does not, by itself, violate Rule 7.1. A domain name is essentially an address. It facilitates contact with the holder of the name. By definition, such contact will involve disclosure of the identity of the lawyer that registered the name. As such, the absence of the attorney's name in the domain name is unlikely to mislead or create a false impression.
Rule 7.2 requires an attorney advertising his or her services to include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of the ad. This Committee has previously concluded that the use of an Internet web page is an advertisement within the meaning of Rule 7.2. See Maryland Ethics Opinion 97-26. However, the Committee believes that most domain names, unlike web pages, are not primarily intended to advertise a lawyer's services, as long as they do not include or incorporate descriptive phrases. The under-lying purpose of Rule 7.2 is to prevent confusion among the general public as to an attorney's experience or expertise. It accomplishes this by requiring the advertising attorney to disclose himself or herself. The Committee does not believe that the absence of an attorney's name from his or her non-descriptive domain name creates any meaningful potential for confusion as to the attorney's practice. Unlike a general advertisement, a domain name that does not include a descriptive phrase usually makes no representations as to the attorney's scope of expertise. As such, there is no need or purpose for simultaneous disclosure of the attorney's identity.
When a domain name includes a descriptive phrase it can resemble or constitute an advertisement. In that instance Rule 7.2 requires disclosure of the identity of the advertising attorney. If domain name protocol restrictions preclude the disclosure in the actual domain name, the advertising attorney's identity should be fully disclosed in all publications of the domain name.
The issues raised by the examples you cite also pertain to the use of descriptive words or phrases within domain names. We suggest that you refer to Rule 7.5 and the accompanying commentary, which provides detailed guidance on these issues.