New Jersey attorney advertising compliance is an interesting world. Nothing triggers as much visceral debate as bidding on a competitor’s name.
That’s understandable given how unethical it might sound. Is it a savvy business move or an ethical ambush to buy a rival’s name so your firm appears at the top of a search result?
To many practitioners, competitive keyword advertising feels inherently unethical. It feels like digitally “leeching” on another firm’s hard-earned reputation.
But, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently clarified the boundaries of this practice. They ruled that buying a rival’s name as a keyword isn’t inherently unethical, and thus allowed. Rebranding the practice “proximity marketing”, they also provide a strict compliance blueprint for firms that choose to use it.
If you are a New Jersey lawyer looking to sharpen your search engine marketing without triggering an ethics grievance, you need to understand the thin line between aggressive competition and deceptive conduct under advertising ethics rules. If you’re newer to search marketing, it may help to first understand what SEO for lawyers actually involves and how it fits into digital marketing.
Quick Answer: Can New Jersey Lawyers Legally Bid on a Competitor’s Name?
Yes. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in In re Opinion No. 735 that lawyers may buy a competitor’s name as a keyword. But, the practice must not be deceptive and requires a mandatory disclaimer on the landing page. “Hijacking” tactics that mislead users violate NJ RPC 8.4(c) and attorney advertising ethics rules.
The Legal Framework: What In re Opinion No. 735 Means for New Jersey Lawyers
On May 22, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in In re Opinion No. 735, addressing the narrow question of whether an attorney can buy a competing lawyer’s or firm’s name as a keyword.
The Court held that competitive keyword advertising, in itself, does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) governing attorney advertising in New Jersey.
The ruling affirmed that purchasing a competitor’s name is not a “communication” subject to RPC 7.1 or 7.2. Their reasoning is that the act of bidding happens behind the scenes and does not necessarily create a false or misleading suggestion of affiliation.
Furthermore, the Court found that the practice does not inherently violate NJ RPC 8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”.
In New Jersey, a violation of RPC 8.4(c) requires a showing of “deliberate and intentional conduct designed to mislead”.
It’s common for a firm to appear in a “Sponsored” result beside the organic results for competitor. Modern internet users generally understand that, so they’re not misled.
Drawing the Ethical Line: Proximity Marketing vs. Keyword Hijacking
The most critical takeaway for any firm engaging in search engine marketing under New Jersey lawyer advertising ethics rules is the distinction the Court made between “proximity marketing” and “hijacking.”
What Is “Proximity Marketing” in New Jersey Lawyer Advertising?
The Court compared competitive keyword advertising to “proximity marketing.” That’s a traditional business tactic where a company intentionally positions itself near a market leader to target their overflow customers.
For example, a solo practitioner might open an office in the same building a huge firm. Or a digital marketer might bid on that firm’s name to get their own services “in the conversation.”
As long as the ad clearly identifies the firm being advertised and doesn’t misrepresent their identity, New Jersey attorney advertising rules consider it a lawful competitive tool.
For firms evaluating whether search advertising is worth it at all, you may also want to consider what the best form of advertising for a lawyer looks like in today’s market.
The Ethical Trap: When Keyword Advertising Becomes Deceptive Hijacking
While bidding on a name is permissible, “hijacking” is strictly prohibited.
The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE) defines hijacking as deceptively embedding a hyperlink into a competitor’s name so that a user clicking that name is redirected to your website without knowing.
The Court and the ACPE agree that this is a “surreptitious” and “purposeful” act designed to deceive searchers. Thus, it makes up a clear violation of NJ RPC 8.4(c) and New Jersey lawyer advertising ethics standards.
Many firms fall into compliance trouble not because of intent, but because of poor digital execution. These kinds of errors often overlap with broader NJ SEO mistakes law firms can’t afford to make.
The Compliance Blueprint: Mandatory Disclaimer Requirements for NJ Lawyers
Just because these competitive keyword advertising practices became legal, doesn’t mean firms get carte blanche.
The NJ Supreme Court requires a specific, precautionary disclaimer for any firm utilizing this strategy.
If you buy a competitor’s name as a keyword, you must include the following exact language on any landing page to which the paid ad directs the consumer:
“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.”
Disclaimer Placement Rules: How New Jersey Lawyers Must Display It
Including the text above isn’t enough. The disclaimer must be:
- Prominently Displayed: It can’t be buried in a footer or hidden behind a “Read More” link.
- Conspicuous: To the extent possible, the disclaimer must match the font size and color used predominately on the landing page.
- Transparent: It must appear on every page where the sponsored search result is likely to lead the consumer.
Failure to include this disclaimer turns a permissible marketing tactic into a potential ethics violation under New Jersey attorney advertising rules.
Why Competitive Keyword Advertising Can Benefit Smaller New Jersey Law Firms
Legal marketing in New Jersey can be a real warzone. But competitive keyword advertising can put small firms or solo practitioners on equal footing with huge powerhouse firms.
- Market Entry: In New Jersey, nearly $105 million was spent on legal ads in 2023, with over 53% going to “Spot TV”. Smaller firms can’t compete with that. Bidding on those leaders’ names in search results allows a smaller firm to capture “overflow” clients who are actively looking for legal help but may be open to alternative representation.
- Niche Targeting: Because keyword campaigns can be adjusted by location, device, and time of day, they offer a high degree of precision for firms with limited budgets.
- Brand Awareness: Even if a user doesn’t click your ad, seeing your firm’s name at the top of a search result for a major competitor builds authority and “top-of-mind” awareness within the New Jersey legal marketplace.
For firms comparing channels, it’s also worth reviewing what the best advertising for lawyers actually is before allocating budget.
The Dissent: Why Some Justices View Competitive Keyword Bidding as Deceptive
It is important to note that the decision in Opinion 735 was not unanimous.
Justice Fasciale issued a sharp dissent, matching what most people would conclude. He argued that “leeching” on a competitor’s reputation for financial gain is inherently deceptive.
He expressed concern that since most users (up to 68% in some studies) struggle to distinguish between organic results and “Sponsored” ads, the practice effectively tricks consumers into clicking links they didn’t intend to.
Though he was the only justice to dissent, the fact he dissented at all goes to show there’s an ethical line here.
Any hint of “deliberate and intentional conduct designed to mislead”—such as using a competitor’s name in your actual ad copy or landing page title—could still trigger a violation under RPC 8.4(c) and broader New Jersey lawyer advertising ethics standards.
Key Compliance Takeaways for New Jersey Attorneys Using Competitive Keywords
- Is bidding on a competitor’s name allowed? Yes, if it complies with In re Opinion No. 735.
- Is keyword bidding automatically unethical? No. It does not violate RPC 7.1, 7.2, or 8.4(c) by itself.
- What is prohibited? Deceptive “hijacking” that redirects users without transparency.
- Is a disclaimer required? Yes. A mandatory disclaimer must appear prominently on the landing page.
- How long must ads be retained? Three years under RPC 7.2(b).
- Who handles compliance? The attorney, even when using third-party marketing vendors.
How New Jersey Lawyers Can Compete Aggressively Without Violating Ethics Rules
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that the digital marketplace is an arena for fair competition, not a protected sanctuary for established reputations.
Competitive keyword advertising is a legitimate tool in the lawyer SEO toolkit, provided it is used with transparency and respect for New Jersey lawyer advertising ethics standards.
To stay on the right side of the ACPE and New Jersey attorney advertising rules, your firm must embrace a “Security First” and “Transparency First” approach:
- Implement the mandatory disclaimer immediately.
- Audit your search engine marketing campaigns to ensure no deceptive “hijacking” is occurring.
- Establish a rigorous record retention system for your digital content.
By following the “Proximity Marketing” Playbook, New Jersey lawyers can grow their digital footprint while upholding the highest standards of the New Jersey bar