The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

South Carolina Lawyer Reprimanded for Buying Google Ads About Opposing Counsel

Posted on October 26, 2015 by Eleanor Smith
Zach Naert

Zach Naert of Naert & Dubois in South Carolina

A South Carolina lawyer was reprimanded for buying Google ads intentionally linked to keyword searches for three opposing lawyers involved in ongoing litigation. Attorney Zachary Steven Naert, who bought the ads for his firm Naert & DuBois used opposing counsel’s names as keywords in a derogatory Internet-marketing campaign.

He also failed to include his own name, his partner’s name or their firm’s name in their internet advertisement in violation of South Carolina ethics rules.

Ripped off? Lied to?

The advertisement, which popped up anytime Google users searched for the timeshare company or its three lawyers, read: “Timeshare Attorney in SC – Ripped off? Lied to? Scammed? Hilton Head Island, SC Free Consult.” Naert paid for this Google AdWords advertising, which at that time appeared amongt the search results with no visible designation or delineation of an area on the web page specifically designated for advertisement.

Google AdWords is an Internet marketing technique in which the advertiser places bids for “keywords.” When a person conducts an Internet search that includes words in common with the advertiser’s selected keywords, the search results may or may not include the advertiser’s ad amongt the list of other nonadvertising or unpaid website search results. The advertiser pays Google if the Internet user clicks on the advertiser’s ad from amongt the search results.

To read an interesting article about social media, see NC State Bar: Social Media Usage by Judges OK

These Google AdWords websites appear at the top of the search results with a yellow box designating them as an “Ad.”

Naert agreed with the South Carolina State Supreme Court that the use of opposing counsels’ names as keywords in an Internet marketing campaign in a derogatory manner expressly violates provisions of the Lawyer’s Oath and the state’s Rules for Professional Conduct.

Fairness, integrity, and civility

South Carolina Professionalism Rule 7 states that communications under the rule must include the name and office address of at least one lawyer responsible for its content. The South Carolina Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to pledge to opposing parties and their counsel the utmost fairness, integrity, and civility in all written communications and to employ only such means consistent with trust, honor, and principles of professionalism.

Lawyer Michael Virzi represents Naert in the ethics case. Virzi said Naert “is a zealous advocate for victims of timeshare fraud” who, with his law partner, recently obtained two substantial awards in timeshare cases.

“As it pertains to the public reprimand,” Virzi wrote, “Zach was attempting to make his services readily available to victims of timeshare fraud with his ad when Zach bid through Google AdWords on an attorney’s name who represents timeshares companies. Zach did not mean to imply in any way that the attorney was a fraud or fraudulent, only that Zach could help honest, hardworking people who have allegations of fraud against timeshare companies.”

The Supreme Court found Naert’s misconduct warranted a public reprimand. Naert has 90 days to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this case and one year to attend and complete a Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Advertising School course.

Attorneys marketing their services should always keep in mind their states’ respective professionalism rules.

Posted in Blog, Business Law, Marketing, Trial Practice

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

No thumbnail available

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]
The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Catholic Diocese is offering a $147 million settlement to sex abuse survivors. This offer comes as a federal ba[Read More...]
Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

A jury in Pensacola, Fla., federal court on Friday ordered 3M to pay $77.5 million to a U.S. Army veteran who said he suffe[Read More...]
The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday upheld $165 million of jury awards against FedEx in a wrongful-death lawsuit stemmin[Read More...]
Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

Weight-loss program Noom has agreed to a $56 million settlement to resolve class action claims regarding its autorenewal and [Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.