Ethics Opinion on Law Firm URL Redirection Following Departure of Name Partner

A new proposed ethics opinion from the Virginia State Bar has set lawyers thinking across the country. The typical hypothetical situation considered by the bar involves a two-person law firm, where the name of the law firm is changed after departure of one name partner. Would it be sufficient for the new law firm to redirect all visitors to its new URL? Could the departing partner continue to use the old URL? Would posting of a simple notice that one law firm partner has left the firm be sufficient to comply with ethics rules? The Virginia State Bar considered these questions which are of importance to today's law community, because this situation, though hypothetically considered, is already a part of our digital reality.

The Virginia bar has a history of being with the 21st century and considering the effects of web etiquette and conduct on the profession. As the Virginia Supreme Court has previously established in Hunter v. Virginia State Bar, lawyers' blogs and websites come under ethics rules for lawyers. And it is in this context that the new proposed ethics opinion has been formulated.


In the instant ethics opinion, the Virginia State Bar Association ethics committee considered a hypothetical law firm Smith & Jones P.C. which uses the URL smithjones.com. With Smith leaving the firm, it changes its name to "joneslawoffice.com" with corresponding URL. Jones proposes to automatically redirect visitors to joneslawoffice.com, or, in the alternative, to put a notice on the previous website to the effect that Smith has left the firm from such and such date, and then provide a link to joneslawoffice.com.

In its ethics opinion, the Virginia bar holds that it would be unethical to either automatically redirect all visitors to the new website of the law firm, and it would also be unethical to just inform the visitors that with Smith's departure, the law firm has changed its name with a new URL, whose link is given. To be fair, and ethical, the opinion says, the notice must also include the facts that Smith continues to practice law (if indeed he continues to do so) and provide additional information as to where the partner who has left, may be contacted.

According to the opinion, the Virginia State Bar's Standing Committee on Legal Ethics is seeking comments on the proposed opinion through the end of February, 2014.