Copy for Originals · Google Ads for law firms · Guide
Bidding on a competitor’s name means adding another law firm’s name as a Google Ads keyword, so your ad shows when someone searches for that firm. Lawyers also call it competitive keyword advertising or conquesting. This guide lists the seven states with a published position, quotes each one, and covers the court cases, Google’s own policy, and what a firm can do when the name being bid on is its own.
Educational only, not legal advice. This page quotes public ethics opinions, court rulings and Google’s policies as read on October 13, 2026. Copy for Originals is a Google Ads consultant, not a law firm. Your state bar’s rules and your own counsel decide what your firm may do.
It depends on the state. Ethics opinions in North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan say a lawyer may not use another lawyer’s name as a keyword. Texas, South Carolina and New Jersey allow it with conditions, and Florida’s rule turns on whether the ad makes clear whose ad it is. Google itself does not restrict using a trademark as a keyword.
| State | Position | Authority | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina | Not allowed | State Bar, 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 (adopted April 27, 2012) and 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4 (adopted January 19, 2024) | Covers a lawyer’s name and a unique firm trade name. A generic phrase that is also a trade name is allowed. |
| Ohio | Not allowed | Board of Professional Conduct, Opinion 2021-04 (June 11, 2021) | Nonbinding advisory opinion. |
| Michigan | Not allowed without consent | State Bar of Michigan, Opinion RI-385 (November 18, 2022) | Allowed only with the other lawyer’s or firm’s express consent. |
| Texas | Allowed | Professional Ethics Committee, Opinion 661 (July 2016) | The ad must not be false or misleading or suggest the lawyers are affiliated. |
| South Carolina | Allowed | Bar Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion 20-01 | No derogatory or uncivil message. No disguised link that redirects from the competitor’s site. |
| New Jersey | Allowed | Supreme Court, In re Opinion No. 735 (decided May 22, 2025) | A set disclaimer on the landing page. No hyperlink on the competitor’s name. |
| Florida | Depends on the ad | Rule 4-7.13(b)(12), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (effective May 2, 2022) | The ad must not mislead a searcher into contacting a different lawyer. The first text shown should be the advertiser’s name. |
These are the seven states where we found a published ethics opinion, court ruling or rule on the question. A state that isn’t listed may have a position we did not find, so check your own state bar. A Wisconsin appeals court has also ruled on the practice, under a privacy statute, not the ethics rules; it is in the court cases below.
This page is part of the Google Ads for law firms guide.
North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan have ethics opinions saying a lawyer may not use another lawyer’s or law firm’s name as a keyword. North Carolina and Ohio treat it as dishonest conduct under Rule 8.4(c), and Michigan requires the other lawyer’s express consent.
North Carolina State Bar 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14, adopted April 27, 2012, concludes: “it is a violation of Rule 8.4(c) for a lawyer to select another lawyer’s name to be used in his own keyword advertising.” The opinion reasons that buying the recognition attached to another lawyer’s name to send consumers to a competing website “is neither fair nor straightforward.”
North Carolina extended the rule to firm trade names in 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4, adopted January 19, 2024. Its summary reads: “the intentional selection of another lawyer’s unique firm trade name in a keyword advertisement campaign is prohibited, but that prohibition does not apply when the trade name is also a common search term.” In the opinion’s example, a lawyer may not select the unique trade name “Strike Three Divorce Lawyers,” but may select “Durham family lawyers” even though another firm uses that phrase as its trade name.
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Opinion 2021-04, issued June 11, 2021, states in its syllabus: “A lawyer or law firm may not purchase the name of another lawyer or law firm for use in competitive keyword online advertising.” The opinion finds the purchase itself is not a false communication under Rule 7.1, but calls it “an act that is designed to deceive an Internet user and thus contrary to Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).” It adds that a lawyer who tries and fails to divert the searcher has still attempted a violation under Rule 8.4(a). The opinion describes itself as a nonbinding advisory opinion.
State Bar of Michigan Opinion RI-385, dated November 18, 2022, states in its syllabus: “An attorney may not utilize a keyword advertising campaign that involves using the name of another attorney, law firm or attorney’s or law firm’s tradenames without the express consent of the other attorney or law firm.” The opinion cites Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1(a), 7.5(d) and 8.4(b), and covers trade names as well as personal names.
Texas, South Carolina and New Jersey allow a lawyer to buy a competitor’s name as a keyword. Texas says the ad must not be false or misleading or suggest the lawyers are affiliated, South Carolina bars derogatory messages and disguised redirect links, and New Jersey requires a disclaimer on the landing page.
Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 661, issued July 2016, concludes: “A lawyer does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by simply using the name of a competing lawyer or law firm as a keyword in the implementation of an advertising service offered by a major search-engine company.” The ad itself still has to follow the advertising rules: it must not be false or misleading, and the lawyer must not hold out as a partner, shareholder or associate of the other lawyer. The opinion also notes that keyword advertising “may be subject to other requirements or prohibitions imposed by federal or state law or by professional ethics rules of other jurisdictions.”
South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-01 concludes that “a lawyer may purchase an internet competitive advertising keyword that is the name of another lawyer or law firm, in order to display a ‘sponsored’ website advertisement.” The lawyer “should use care to ensure that no derogatory or uncivil message is conveyed,” and “surreptitious redirection from a competitor’s website to a lawyer’s own web page via a hyperlink is prohibited.” The committee notes that it has no disciplinary authority.
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided In re Opinion No. 735 on May 22, 2025, and held “that the practice of purchasing a competitor’s name as a keyword does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the RPCs.” The Court affirmed its ethics committee’s 2019 opinion and added a requirement. A lawyer who buys a competitor’s name as a keyword must put this disclaimer on any landing page the paid ad leads to:
You arrived at this page via a paid advertisement on [insert name of search engine provider] through paid keyword search results. This website and the legal business it describes are affiliated only with [insert name of purchasing attorney] and the other attorneys referenced within this website.
The committee’s separate finding that a hyperlink placed on a competitor’s name to redirect the user violates Rule 8.4(c) was not challenged and still stands. Justice Fasciale dissented and would have held that the practice violates Rule 8.4(c).
Florida does not ban buying another lawyer’s name as a keyword, but since May 2, 2022 Rule 4-7.13(b)(12) has prohibited ads that mislead a person searching for one lawyer into unknowingly contacting another. The rule’s comment says the ad is not misleading if the first text displayed is the name of the advertising lawyer or law firm.
The Florida Supreme Court added the subdivision in case No. SC20-1467, decided March 3, 2022. It lists as a deceptive and inherently misleading advertisement: “a statement or implication that another lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or other information presented in a way that misleads a person searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.”
The comment adopted with the rule gives this as impermissible: “use of another lawyer or law firm name as an Internet search term that triggers the display of an advertisement that does not clearly indicate that the advertisement is for a lawyer or law firm that is not the lawyer or law firm used as the search term.” It then says how to comply: “The triggered advertisement would not be misleading if the first text displayed is the name of the advertising lawyer or law firm.” If the firm uses a trade name that does not include a partner’s name, the name of the lawyer responsible for the ad must also be in that first text.
In the two federal appeals rulings between law firms covered here, the keyword purchase alone did not decide the case; what mattered was whether searchers were likely to be confused. The Ninth Circuit found no likely confusion in Lerner & Rowe in 2024. The Fifth Circuit let a claim proceed in Adler v. McNeil in 2021 because the complaint alleged generic ads and misleading call handling in addition to the keyword purchase.
| Case | What the bidder did | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand & Shely (9th Cir., October 22, 2024) | An Arizona injury firm bought “Lerner & Rowe” as a Google Ads keyword. The court weighed the labeling and appearance of its ads in the bidder’s favor. | No likely confusion. Summary judgment for the bidder affirmed. |
| Adler v. McNeil Consultants (5th Cir., August 10, 2021) | A referral service allegedly bought a Texas lawyer’s name and nicknames as keywords, ran generic click-to-call ads that named no firm, and answered calls with a generic greeting. | Dismissal reversed. The claim was allowed to proceed in the district court. |
| Habush v. Cannon (Wis. Ct. App., February 21, 2013) | A Wisconsin firm bid on “Habush” and “Rottier,” the names of lawyers at a rival firm, on Google, Yahoo and Bing. | No violation of Wisconsin’s right of privacy statute. |
| Franklin D. Azar & Associates’ suit against the Slocumb Law Firm (filed 2022) | An Alabama firm allegedly ran Google ads that made callers believe they were calling Azar’s firm. | Settled for $1.55 million, as reported in December 2024. |
The Ninth Circuit had numbers to work with in Lerner & Rowe. Searches for “Lerner & Rowe” showed the competitor’s ad 109,322 times between 2017 and 2021. Callers mentioned Lerner & Rowe in 236 intake calls, which the court put at 0.216% of those shown the ad and called de minimis. Users clicked the competitor’s ad 7,452 times, or 6.82% of the time it was shown. A survey commissioned by the competitor found that its ads confused between 0% and 3% of consumers.
The Fifth Circuit ruled on a complaint, not on evidence. It wrote that the pleading “included factual matter beyond the mere purchase of trademarks as keywords for search-engine advertising.” Adler had also offered a survey of 400 Texas residents that, in the court’s words, “purportedly shows” that between 34% and 44% of participants clicked the ad believing it was connected to him. The ruling sent the case back to the district court; this page does not cover what happened there afterward.
The Azar firm filed a similar suit against a Denver firm in Denver District Court, BusinessDen reported on May 22, 2025. No outcome was reported in that article.
Yes. Google’s trademark policy says Google Ads will not restrict using trademarks as keywords. After a trademark owner complains, Google may restrict the trademark in the text of a competitor’s ad, but not as a keyword.
Google’s Trademarks policy lists what Google Ads will not restrict after a trademark complaint, and the first item is “Using trademarks as keywords.” It also says “The trademark must be used in the ad, not only on the ad’s landing page.”
The same policy lists what Google will restrict: “Using trademarks in an ad from a direct competitor” and “Ads that use the trademark in a confusing, deceptive, or misleading way.” So a firm with a trademark can ask Google to stop a competitor from writing its name into ad headlines or descriptions, but not from bidding on the name.
Google’s policy is not a legal or ethics ruling. An ad Google accepts can still break a state’s rules.
Across the opinions, rules and cases on this page, the trouble comes from four things: the state the lawyer is in, an ad that doesn’t say whose it is, the competitor’s name appearing in the ad itself, and calls answered without naming the firm. The keyword purchase alone was the problem only in the three states that prohibit it.
| Factor | Where it mattered |
|---|---|
| The state | North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan prohibit selecting the name at all. |
| Whether the ad says whose it is | Florida’s comment (first text must be the advertiser’s name). Adler (ads that named no firm). Lerner & Rowe (labeled ads weighed for the bidder). |
| The competitor’s name in the ad text | Google’s policy restricts it on complaint. Texas bars implying the lawyers are affiliated. Florida’s comment calls it impermissible unless the ad clearly says the firms are separate. |
| How calls are answered | Adler (click-to-call ads and a generic greeting). The Azar suit (callers who believed they had reached Azar’s firm). |
| How many people were actually confused | Lerner & Rowe (0.216% of those shown the ad was too few). |
This table is our reading of the sources on this page. It is not a legal test, and a court or bar in another state could weigh things differently.
Check six things before bidding on a competitor’s name: your state’s position, every other state where the ad will run, that the first line of your ad is your own firm’s name, that the competitor’s name cannot appear in your ad, that the landing page says whose site it is, and that calls are answered with your firm’s name.
Then take the plan to the lawyer who handles your firm’s ethics questions. Nothing on this list is a substitute for that.
Yes. A broad or phrase match keyword such as “car accident lawyer” can match a search that also contains another firm’s name, so the ad shows without the firm ever choosing that name. The search terms report shows when this has happened, and adding the competitor’s name as a negative keyword stops it.
Google’s help page on match types says a broad match keyword matches “additional related searches” beyond the ones phrase and exact match would catch. A search such as “Smith and Jones car accident lawyer” contains the keyword and a firm’s name.
None of the ethics opinions read for this page mentions broad match. The North Carolina opinions speak of a lawyer who intentionally selects the name. A firm in a state that prohibits the practice can remove the question by adding the names of local competitors as negative keywords. That is a Google Ads practice, not a rule from any opinion. The Negative Keyword Finder reads a search terms report in the browser, so you can look for other firms’ names in the searches you paid for.
A law firm whose name is being bid on can document the ads, see which advertisers appear on its name with the auction insights report, run a campaign on its own name, and file a trademark complaint with Google if its name appears in the competitor’s ad text. Whether to go to the state bar or to court is a question for the firm’s own lawyer.
Copy for Originals can pull the auction insights and search terms for your firm’s brand searches, show you which advertisers appear on your name, and check whether your own ads are showing on other firms’ names. We manage Google Ads; we don’t give legal opinions. Contact Copy for Originals.
For costs, call recording and intake, see the main guide: Google Ads for law firms. Three of the court cases above involve injury firms; the personal injury Google Ads guide covers the rest of an injury campaign.
Each source was read on October 13, 2026. Opinions and rulings were read in full text unless noted.