On this page · 10 sections
- Key facts
- Can lawyers bid on a competitor’s name? The state-by-state answer
- What does New Jersey require on the landing page?
- Why does North Carolina bar it?
- Where is it allowed if the ad isn’t misleading?
- What do Florida and Alabama add?
- What about the other states?
- What does Google’s trademark policy allow?
- How to run competitor campaigns safely
- What this means for your firm
As of October 25, 2026, the answer depends on your state. Texas and South Carolina allow bidding on a rival firm’s name if your ad isn’t misleading. New Jersey allows it only with a set disclaimer on your landing page, and North Carolina bars it when the name is a rival’s unique name.
Key facts
- On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that buying a competitor’s name as a keyword “does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the RPCs,” but required a clear landing-page disclaimer (NJ Courts).
- New Jersey’s ethics committee published the disclaimer’s wording on December 8, 2025 (NJ Courts).
- North Carolina’s 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4, adopted January 19, 2024, bars intentionally selecting another lawyer’s unique firm trade name as a keyword (NC State Bar).
- Texas Opinion 661 (July 2016) found competitor-name keywords “neither dishonest nor fraudulent nor deceitful” (Texas Center for Legal Ethics).
- Alabama’s rules, effective January 1, 2026, say “competitive keyword advertising is not prohibited” when sponsored links are separated and labeled (Supreme Court of Alabama).
- Google “will not restrict” trademarks used as keywords, but may restrict them in ad text after a complaint (Google).
Can lawyers bid on a competitor’s name? The state-by-state answer
Six states have a rule, court ruling or ethics opinion on the question that we have read at the source. They split three ways: allowed if not misleading (Texas, South Carolina), allowed with conditions (New Jersey, Florida, Alabama), and barred for unique names (North Carolina). Everywhere else, our library has no opinion on point, so the general bar on misleading ads and dishonest conduct applies.
| State | Answer | Condition or limit | Source (read October 25, 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | Allowed, with a disclaimer | The landing page carries the set disclaimer. Hyperlinking a rival’s name to your site stays barred | In re Opinion No. 735 (May 22, 2025); ACPE supplement (December 8, 2025) |
| North Carolina | Barred for unique names | A generic, place-based phrase people commonly search is allowed, even if a rival registered it as a trade name | 2023 FEO 4 (adopted January 19, 2024); 2010 FEO 14 (adopted April 27, 2012) |
| Texas | Allowed | The ad can’t imply you are partners or associated with the other lawyer | Opinion 661 (July 2016) |
| South Carolina | Allowed | No derogatory or uncivil message; no hidden redirect from the rival’s site | Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-01 |
| Florida | Allowed, with a naming rule | The ad must not imply an affiliation; the first text shown is your own name (or the responsible lawyer’s, for a trade name) | Rule 4-7.13(b)(12), Florida Bar handbook (December 2025) |
| Alabama | Allowed, with conditions | Sponsored links separated and labeled as ads; no buying results that make a person “mistakenly” contact you | Rule 7.2(r) and comment, effective January 1, 2026 |
| Every other jurisdiction | No opinion in our library | The usual rules on misleading ads and dishonest conduct apply | State rules library |
The table’s conclusion: no state that has written on this lets a firm hide who it is. Even where bidding is allowed, the ad and the landing page must make clear which firm the searcher reached.
What does New Jersey require on the landing page?
New Jersey allows competitor-name keywords only with a disclaimer on every landing page the paid ad can lead to. The Supreme Court added the requirement on May 22, 2025, and the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics published the wording on December 8, 2025. The disclaimer must be “prominently displayed” and should match the page’s main font size and color (NJ Courts).
The committee’s wording, with the brackets to fill in:
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 attorneys referenced within this website.
The court’s own summary uses slightly different words (“the other attorneys referenced”), so use the committee’s December 2025 version and keep a dated copy (NJ Courts PDF).
Two more New Jersey points. First, the court didn’t review the second half of Opinion 735: the committee’s 2019 finding that hyperlinking a competitor’s name so a click lands on your site violates RPC 8.4(c). No party challenged it, so it stands (same source). Second, the decision was 4 to 1, with a dissent that would have barred the practice. The court also said it does not hold that competitive keyword advertising “can never be misleading” (same source).
Why does North Carolina bar it?
North Carolina treats buying a rival’s unique name as dishonest conduct under Rule 8.4(c). Its 2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 (adopted April 27, 2012) barred selecting another lawyer’s name as a keyword. The 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4, adopted January 19, 2024, extended that to a firm’s unique trade name, and carved out generic phrases (NC State Bar).
The opinion’s two examples make the line clear:
- Barred: bidding on a rival’s unique trade name, such as the opinion’s invented “Strike Three Divorce Lawyers.” Doing so is “neither fair nor straightforward” (same source).
- Allowed: bidding on “Durham Family Lawyers,” a generic, place-based phrase that people commonly search, even though a rival registered it as a trade name. The committee warned that the other result would set off a “trade name land rush” (same source).
For a North Carolina firm, that means a negative-keyword list of rival firm names, and a check of any broad-match or AI-driven campaign that might match those names on its own.
Where is it allowed if the ad isn’t misleading?
Texas and South Carolina allow competitor-name keywords as long as the ad itself isn’t misleading. Texas Opinion 661 (July 2016) found the practice “neither dishonest nor fraudulent nor deceitful,” and disagreed with North Carolina by name. South Carolina’s Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-01 adopted the reasoning of New Jersey’s committee, Texas and a Wisconsin court (SC Bar).
The conditions are about the ad, not the keyword:
- Texas: a violation if the ad holds you out as a partner or associate of the other lawyer, or would lead a reasonable person to think you are connected (Opinion 661). Texas ads still go to the Advertising Review Committee under the usual filing rule.
- South Carolina: no “derogatory or uncivil message,” and no “surreptitious redirection” from a competitor’s site to yours (EAO 20-01).
What do Florida and Alabama add?
Florida and Alabama allow the practice but set rules for how the ad reads. Florida’s handbook says sponsored results are subject to the ad rules and may not mislead someone into “unknowingly contacting” the advertising lawyer. Under the comment to Rule 4-7.13, a triggered result isn’t misleading if the first text shown is the advertising lawyer’s or firm’s name (Florida Bar handbook). If the firm uses a trade name without a lawyer’s name, the responsible lawyer’s name comes first (same source). Florida ads also go through the Bar’s filing process.
Alabama’s 2026 rules say a lawyer “must not manipulate or purchase internet search results” so that a prospective client mistakenly contacts that lawyer instead of the one they searched for (Rule 7.2(r)). The comment says competitive keyword advertising is allowed when the search engine separates and labels sponsored links, and gives three cases that break the rules: the ad isn’t clearly labeled, it makes a reasonable person think you are the other lawyer, or it leads the searcher to contact you by mistake (Supreme Court of Alabama).
What about the other states?
Our library has no ethics opinion on competitor-name keywords for any other jurisdiction as of October 25, 2026. That isn’t a yes. The New Jersey opinion records a real split: it cites ethics opinions from Michigan (RI-385, 2022) and Ohio (2021-04) calling the practice deceptive, and its dissent cites Maryland’s Ethics Docket 2022-02 (2023) to the same effect (NJ Courts PDF). We haven’t read those three opinions at their sources yet, so they aren’t in the table. If your firm practices in Michigan, Ohio or Maryland, treat competitor-name bidding as high risk until you or your counsel read the opinion.
What does Google’s trademark policy allow?
Google lets advertisers use someone else’s trademark as a keyword. It restricts trademark use in the ad itself. Its policy says Google Ads “will not restrict” trademarks used as keywords, but will restrict a trademark used in an ad “from a direct competitor” or in a confusing, deceptive or misleading way, after the owner complains (Google).
| What you do | Google’s trademark policy | State ethics rules |
|---|---|---|
| Use a rival firm’s name as a keyword | Not restricted | Depends on the state (see the table above) |
| Put a rival’s name in your headline or description | Can be restricted after a complaint, as a direct competitor | Implies an affiliation in most states; avoid it |
| Land the click on a page about your own firm | Not a trademark issue | New Jersey requires its disclaimer; Florida and Alabama require clear identification |
| Hyperlink a rival’s name to your site | Not addressed by this policy | Barred in New Jersey and South Carolina as deceptive |
Google’s restriction applies only where the owner has shown trademark rights and filed a complaint, and a firm name may or may not be a registered mark. Google’s policy is about trademark law; it doesn’t answer the ethics question. A firm can pass Google’s review and still break North Carolina’s rule.
How to run competitor campaigns safely
If your state allows it and your counsel agrees:
- Write your own name first. Lead every headline set with your firm’s name. That meets Florida’s test and makes the ad’s source plain everywhere.
- Never use the rival’s name in ad text. Not in headlines, descriptions, sitelinks or callouts.
- Add the New Jersey disclaimer to every landing page a New Jersey competitor ad can reach, in the page’s usual font.
- Block rival names where they’re barred. In North Carolina, add rivals’ unique names as negative keywords across every campaign, including broad-match and AI-driven ones.
- Keep records. A dated list of the keywords bought, each ad version and the attorney’s approval. In filing states, filed copies too.
Read more in our Google Ads guide for law firms, and track new opinions on our marketing ethics opinion tracker.
What this means for your firm
- Check your state before you bid. The same keyword is fine in Texas and an ethics problem in North Carolina.
- The ad text is where firms get in trouble. Your name first, never theirs, and a landing page that says plainly who you are.
- Google’s approval isn’t the bar’s approval. Google allows the keyword; your state decides whether you may buy it.
We check your state’s ad rules for you, on Google ads and on getting found on Google and in AI answers. See where your firm stands, or get a free review of your current campaigns.
Last reviewed October 25, 2026 by the Probative editorial team. Marketing information, not legal advice. Confirm every rule with your state bar and your own counsel before you run an ad.
Data. The opinions behind this page are in the ethics opinions dataset; Google’s policy is in the platform policies dataset.