Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 04-007

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
(614) 387-9370 (888) 664-8345 FAX: (614) 387-9379
www.sconet.state.oh.us
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2004-7
Issued August 6, 2004
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: A law firm may be identified on a business client’s Web site, but
may not be referred to as the company’s preferred attorneys. Communication to
the public of a law firm’s name and logo on a business client’s Web site is
acceptable because it is not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-
laudatory, or unfair statement. Communication to the public through the
company Web site that a law firm is the company’s “preferred attorneys” is
misleading. Whether it is proper for a business client to list a law firm in the
company’s brochure and in press releases will depend upon the context and the
content. A lawyer must be vigilant that any such communication does not imply
that the company and law firm are in business together. A lawyer or law firm
may not request a client to promote the law firm on its Web site and may not
compensate the client for the publicity. If a lawyer is aware that a law firm client
Web site is using the law firm name or its lawyers’ names inappropriately or
making improper statements or references to the lawyers or law firm, the lawyers
should counsel the client and withdraw from representation if the Web site
remains objectionable.
OPINION: This opinion addresses a question regarding a client Web site
including publicity about a law firm.
May a law firm be identified on a business client’s Web site and be
referred to as the company’s preferred attorneys?
A law firm’s business client has asked for permission from the firm to list the law
firm name and logo on the company Web site. The client also is considering
listing the law firm in a written brochure or in its press releases. The law firm did
not request the publicity from the client. The firm will provide no promises,
guarantees, or consideration to the client for the publicity.
No disciplinary rule in the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility directly
governs what a client may place on a client’s Web site or how a client may
advertise. The disciplinary rules govern how an attorney may advertise and how
an attorney may promote his or her services.

Op. 2004-7 2
Lawyers are concerned when a client creates publicity and recommendations for
the lawyer or law firm because DR 2-101(A)(2) prohibits lawyers from
circumventing the disciplinary rules through actions of another.
The proposed client Web site advertises and recommends the law firm; therefore,
disciplinary rules regarding publicity (DR 2-101 through DR 2-105) and
recommendations (DR 2-103) are germane.
Recommendations
Lawyers may not request others to recommend or promote the use of the lawyers’
services.
DR 2-103(C)
A lawyer shall not request a person or organization to
recommend or promote the use of the lawyer’s services or
those of the lawyer’s partner or associate, or any other lawyer
affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm, as a private
practitioner. [There are exceptions to this rule, not
applicable herein.]
Lawyers may not compensate or give any thing of value to a person or
organization to recommend the lawyers’ services.
DR 2-103(B) A lawyer shall not compensate or give any thing of
value to a person or organization to recommend or secure the
lawyer’s employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a
recommendation resulting in the lawyer’s employment by a client.
[There are exceptions to this rule, not applicable herein.]
As to the proposed client Web site, a lawyer would not violate DR 2-103(B) and
(C), so long as the lawyer or law firm did not request the client to promote the law
firm on its Web site and did not compensate the client for the publicity.
Advertising
The advertising rules pre-date the Internet, but are applicable to Internet
advertising. The types of permissible advertising methods listed in the
advertising rules are illustrative not exclusive. See e.g. Ohio SupCt, Bd Comm’rs
on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 2001-2 (2001).
While there are many specific prohibitions on lawyer advertising, the over
arching requirement of DR 2-101(A)(1) is that communication not contain “any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statement.”
As to the proposed listing of a law firm’s name and logo on a client’s Web site, the
Board finds no bar in the advertising rules. Communication to the public of a law

Op. 2004-7 3
firm’s name and logo on a business client’s Web site is acceptable because it is
not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statement.
As to the proposed listing of a law firm as the “preferred attorneys” of the
company, it is not acceptable under the advertising rules. Communication to the
public through the company Web site that a law firm is the company’s “preferred
attorneys” is misleading. It implies that the attorney and the law firm have a
special “preferred” status among attorneys and law firms. It may also appear to
Web site visitors as a client testimonial. Lawyers are prohibited by DR 2-
101(A)(3) from using any form of public communication that contains client
testimonials. Lawyers should not encourage others to publicize testimonial
statements about them or their law firm.
As to the possible listing of the law firm in the company’s brochure and in press
releases, whether it is proper will depend upon the context and the content. A
lawyer must be vigilant that any such communication does not imply that the
company and law firm are in business together. DR 3-103(A) warns, “[a] lawyer
shall not form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities of the
partnership consist of the practice of law.”
Related Ethics Opinions
This Board has advised that the disciplinary rules do not prohibit a lawyer from
listing its clients, if there is client consent, on a law firm Web site. See Ohio
SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 2000-6 (2000). A logical
extension of that opinion is that likewise, the disciplinary rules do not prohibit a
business client from listing its lawyer on the business Web site.
The Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee of the Cincinnati Bar
Association advised in Op. 96-97-01 (1997) that it is proper for a client’s Web site
to list an attorney or law firm.
A client of an attorney or law firm may list the attorney or law firm
on the client’s Internet Home Page and may provide a link to an
attorney’s or law firm’s Home Page on the client’s Internet Home
Page if the attorney or law firm does not request the link and does
not provide compensation or any thing of value to the client in
return for the client listing the attorney or law firm as their attorney
or law firm and providing the link on the client’s Internet Home
Page.
If a lawyer objects to a client’s Web site, what should the lawyer do? The South
Carolina Bar ethics advisory committee, considering the propriety of a client’s
Web site seeking witnesses and potential parties to litigation, stated that “[t]he
attorneys may conclude that they do not object to the web page being used to seek
potential plaintiffs.” South Carolina Bar, Op. 99-09. But, the committee advised
that “[i]f the web page does not comply with the rules on advertising, the
attorneys should counsel the client about any omissions and advise the client
about how the web page could be changed to comply with those rules. If the

Op. 2004-7 4
client refuses to bring the page into compliance, the lawyer should give serious
consideration to withdrawal from representation to avoid any impression that the
lawyer has authorized or adopted the client’s continued use of the web page.” Id.
This Board agrees that if a lawyer is aware that a client’s Web site uses the law
firm name or the lawyers’ names inappropriately or makes improper statements
or references to the lawyers or law firm, the lawyer should counsel the client and
withdraw if the Web site remains objectionable.
Conclusion
A law firm may be identified on a business client’s Web site, but may not be
referred to as the company’s preferred attorneys. Communication to the public of
a law firm’s name and logo on a business client’s Web site is acceptable because it
is not a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair
statement. Communication to the public through the company Web site that a
law firm is the company’s “preferred attorneys” is misleading. Whether it is
proper for a business client to list a law firm in the company’s brochure and in
press releases will depend upon the context and the content. A lawyer must be
vigilant that any such communication does not imply that the company and law
firm are in business together. A lawyer or law firm may not request a client to
promote the law firm on its Web site and may not compensate the client for the
publicity. If a lawyer is aware that a law firm client Web site is using the law firm
name or its lawyers’ names inappropriately or making improper statements or
references to the lawyers or law firm, the lawyer should counsel the client and
withdraw if the Web site remains objectionable.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.