Comments on: New York lawyer ad rules — “retention” and more

By: Michael K

Michael K — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:20:47 +0000

Sorry about using the business name, just my standard practice when leaving comments. I’ve changed it here to my name.

It looks like I read that line incorrectly then. Now that I’ve read it again, what you are saying is how I should have originally read it. Lot of sectors do this then, including financial service sector I believe.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:13:35 +0000

Hello, Domain. The rule does not ban using a domain name that incorporates the lawyer’s name. It sets requirements that must be met if you use a domain name that does not include your name — e.g., SlickLawyer.com.

p.s. I prefer Commentors who use a personal name and not the name of their website or business.

By: DAR

DAR — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:45:09 +0000

I was jusy searching news about domain names and came across this post.

I found this line interesting: “A lawyer or law firm may utilize a domain name for an internet web site that does not include the name of the lawyer or law firm provided.”

With their profession, they are locked down on how they choose to advertise their services. Naturally, if a lawyer you are looking for you will take a look at their name in Google. If they own the domain name that has the lawyers name it will turn out as #1 and the person will find what they are looking for.

Maybe I just don’t understand the logic behind this, but still interesting that they are limited in this way.

By: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » Blog items here on the proposed anti-law-blogging New York Bar ethics rules

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:35:10 +0000

[...] New York ethics rules do not destroy blogs as we know them Probably not, anyway. We were all upset and flustered over the proposed new rules. As actually enacted, they were considerably more mild and don’t seem to affect most law bloggers in what we do, mostly. Probably. The f/k/a . . . blog at Harvard law takes a closer, more detailed look. [...]

By: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » New York ethics rules do not destroy blogs as we know them

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:08:31 +0000

[...] Probably not, anyway. We were all upset and flustered over the proposed new rules. As actually enacted, they were considerably more mild and don’t seem to affect most law bloggers in what we do, mostly. Probably. The f/k/a . . . blog at Harvard law takes a closer, more detailed look. [...]

By: Heidi Tandy

Heidi Tandy — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:41:03 +0000

And there’s also some discussion about what qualifies as a “domain name”. Logic would say to use the InterNIC or WIPO definitions, but perhaps they’ll google “domain name” and “definition” and see that some sites define it as a web address, or everything before the dot-com, and then something like LawyerPseudonymHere.livejournal.com or LawyerName.wordpress.com will be a domain name even if all it’s used for is posting photos of cats and then when the Bonsai Cats get posted there will be an accusation that the lawyer posted something false on said blog in violation of the rules.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:10:30 +0000

Thanks, Rich. Some wags would say, of course, that no lawyer has a “close friend,” making the exception unnecessary (and misleading!).

By: Rich Klein

Rich Klein — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:43:12 +0000

Good piece on the new lawyer advertising rules. In my own blog, I point out that it will be difficult to define a “close friend” when the rules speak about who a lawyer can solicit.

By: PointOfLaw Forum

PointOfLaw Forum — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:17:26 +0000

New York lawyer advertising rules…

New York’s court system has adopted final rules on attorney advertising, effective Feb. 1, which were narrowed significantly from earlier proposals in part to answer criticisms that they would tend to throttle legal blogging and other participation in…