The North Carolina Bar had previously issued an ethics opinion in 2012 holding that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(c). Dishonest conduct includes conduct that shows a lack of fairness or straightforwardness. See In the Matter of Shorter, 570 A.2d 760, 767-68 (DC App. 1990). The intentional purchase of the recognition associated with one lawyer's name to direct consumers to a competing lawyer's website is neither fair nor straightforward. Therefore, it is a violation of Rule 8.4(c) for a lawyer to select another lawyer's name to be used in his own keyword advertising."
Google users typing in the keywords containing the names of other lawyers or law firms were also displayed advertisements placed by Turlington among other advertisements.
Among other reasons for censuring the lawyer the Grievance Committee mentioned that Turlington had knowingly made a false statement of material fact by claiming the inclusion of inappropriate keywords was inadvertent.
The common perception about the matter is also surprising, because, as the ABA Journal observed, "Google users who typed in the keywords were directed to advertisements purchased by Turlington." Such a statement leaves out a lot, because a search engine results page would primarily list all results against the keyword typed in, and would also display advertisement links, and it is the choice of the user as to which link he or she was going to click and visit. Yes, it would have been deceptive if Turlington somehow managed to automatically redirect visitors to his website from links displaying the names of other lawyers or law firms.
The debate is still ongoing on the ethics of law firm advertisement as internet is a new frontier to which the legal industry keeps adapting.
