Sept 27 (Reuters) – Let’s say you’ve seen billboards, social media promos and TV spots by a local personal injury lawyer for years, and then, bam, you’re hit by a bus.
You survived with a few broken bones and some massive medical bills, and you need legal representation fast. Because of all those ads, you think you know just whom to call.
But when you Google the lawyer’s name, the top results are “sponsored” ads by other attorneys angling for your business. You have to scroll down to find information on the lawyer or firm you’re looking for, assuming you don’t mistake the ads for the real thing.
The question now for courts and bar associations is whether such so-called competitive keyword ads — where a search for lawyer A yields ads for lawyer B — are misleading or unethical, allowing lesser-known attorneys to piggyback on the reputations of their more prominent peers.
Or is it just a sly but savvy way to attract new clients in the internet age?
As my Reuters colleague David Thomas reported last week, plaintiffs’ giant Morgan & Morgan, which with more than 1,000 lawyers boasts it’s the biggest injury firm in the U.S., sued, opens new tab a would-be rival over its keyword advertising, alleging that the similarly named Morgan Law Group breached a 2020 settlement agreement not to use such tactics.
In recent years, Morgan & Morgan has sued more than 15 firms over their use of keyword ads linked to its name, partner Damien Prosser told me, and has sent out “hundreds” of cease-and-desist letters. “It’s truly the wild, wild West” of advertising, he said.
Morgan Law Group did not respond to requests for comment.
Other lawyers are suing over keywords, too. In Colorado, Franklin D. Azar & Associates (locals might know him as “The Strong Arm”) sued the Slocumb Law Firm, alleging the Alabama-based defendant used keyword advertising to trick potential Azar clients into hiring Slocumb instead.
According to court papers, opens new tab, Azar claims Slocumb’s ads included deceptive “click-to-call” links that connected would-be clients to operators who evaded questions about which firm had been reached.
Neither Azar nor Slocumb responded to requests for comment.
The case, which alleges violations of Colorado’s consumer protection law, trademark infringement and unjust enrichment, is headed for trial in January, according to the Pueblo County District Court docket.
A Google spokesperson told me that the company doesn’t restrict the use of trademarks as keywords, though it does require advertisers to abide by local trademark laws and prohibits infringement. Ads that conceal or misstate information about the advertiser’s business, product or service are also not allowed, the spokesperson said.
As for the cost of keyword ads, the short answer is, it depends. Per Google, the company holds lightning-fast “ad auctions” for each Google search to decide which ads will appear for a specific query and in which order. Would-be advertisers set a bid telling Google Ads the maximum amount they’re willing to pay for a click on their ad.
The formula is complicated, but one thing is clear: Keyword ads are a lot cheaper than building name recognition via TV, radio, billboard and other conventional advertising, which lawyers tell me can cost millions of dollars per year.
