Lawyers have banned generic web domains. Why is this a bad idea?
The National Union of Bar Associations in Romania has prohibited generic web domains. This decision follows an interpretative ruling by the Cluj Bar, which clarifies that the use of such domains is also prohibited in Cluj. In this article, we analyze the caution of lawyers and why it is lacking.
This may be one of the last efforts I make in favor of the legal profession, as the others seem to have encountered insurmountable obstacles.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a sign of goodwill and respect towards the lawyers I have collaborated with over the past few years to provide a final note of information on a contentious subject that has been profoundly misunderstood by the vast majority of lawyers.
Brief history of the UNBR decision
In 2012, the Court of Appeal of Versailles decided that The use of the web domains "avocats-paris.org" and "avocat-divorce.com", as well as domains of the type "avocat-X", may constitute a form of unfair competition..
The logic used by the Court of Appeal in Versailles, partially founded, was based on the reality of how Google operated in 2012, still being vulnerable to certain attacks or actions that had the effect of manipulating the search engine.
Regarding the mention of its primary activity in the domain name, namely divorce litigation, this was likely to create unfair competition, as when the word 'lawyer' was entered into a search engine, the public would immediately access its site, which appeared at the top of the results page - Court of Appeal Versailles (Automatically translated)
It is true that during that period, Google was much more susceptible to such attacks, and the situation was likely to disadvantage other divorce lawyers in their country.
In order to improve the quality of statutory norms, the leadership of UNBR has incorporated the strategies used by France in national regulation, adding to the statute:
The internet domain address of the professional practice forms cannot consist solely of generic terms referring to the services of a lawyer. The use of generic terms is permitted only if it is associated with the name of the professional practice form or its initials.
Time has passed, and no one has encountered any issues, while in Cluj, Bucharest, and all over the country, fields have emerged that have not caught anyone's attention:
View profile on NNDKP
The domain privacyoutloud.ro, used for the NNDKP blog about protecting privacy, GDPR, etc., is an example of a tolerated domain, so far.
The Cluj Bar Association issues a decision that is more anti-competitive than aimed at protecting competition.
It is evident, however, that the situation could not persist, because in Cluj, for distinct reasons related to the protection of lawyers from my perspective, there have been complaints regarding the entry of younger lawyers (aged 30-40) into the industry.
By capturing a significant market share, they have pulled the rug out from under many traditional professionals. Clearly, their success has led to a greater degree of scrutiny, which has come to find fault with them - the sectors they operate in, and the fact that they use Google Ads.
BlajLaw
Blaj-Law, one of the most contentious law firms in the country, known for its aggressive (yet entirely legal and sensible) content marketing and SEO strategy.
I'm an admin on the site
Nexum Legal, the brand used by Calian Ciortea SCA, has also been determined to be illegal.
Roxana Pop
Roxana Pop, another lawyer heavily criticized by the Cluj Bar Association, in the context of bidding on Google Ads advertisements.
One of the main lawyers involved in this regulatory effort, Ms. Budusan Luiza, seems to have attempted to replicate the "success" of the aforementioned lawyers by purchasing ads on Google and acquiring generic domains, yet the use of these has not translated into the anticipated success.
Below, I have chosen to separate my personal opinion from the article in order not to compromise its perception of impartiality. I have strong feelings regarding what I perceive as a form of sanctioning fair competition and innovation.
Personal opinions about the actions of Ms. Luiza Budusan
Personally, I am deeply disappointed by this behavior, regardless of its source or field. When a person engages in actions, realizes they are not very skilled at them, and then decides to lobby for their prohibition, it does not seem like a fair response to me regarding unfair competition.
I don't know her personally, I've never spoken to her, but her actions speak volumes, and not in her favor.
I will never have an ounce of respect for those who abuse the power they hold as leaders of a group to sanction or prohibit what a segment of the group, which begins to excel professionally, does in relation to the leader.
I agree with the efforts to regulate a profession, and I understand the concerns that may arise from the complexities of a technical field, and somewhat esoteric.
To go from there to considering a field non-competitive simply because you tried and failed is called bad faith, and it is a disdain that society must sanction.
I take responsibility for what I say, because I know for sure that there are many others who are disappointed by such behaviors, but for reasons of diplomacy and strategy, they avoid expressing what they truly think.
In any case, since the strategy did not work, a wave of disciplinary actions began in Cluj, which, however, could not find the norms to justify them. According to sources, those under disciplinary investigation included Blaj Bogdan (Blaj-Law.ro), Călian Ciortea SCA (nexumlegal.ro), and SCA Basarab Todor Gaga - "Vertis Legal." - https://vertis.ro/
In our opinion, the actions taken were not aimed at sanctioning illegal acts, but rather at penalizing lawyers with a strong online presence. Moreover, they did not encounter any punitive measures, as there were no legal norms to initiate them.
Thus, at the insistence of Ms. Luiza Budusan, the Cluj Bar issues an interpretative decision (Resolution no. 108/ 13.05.2024) sanctioning these areas. We believe that the lobbying conducted by the lawyer had a personal character, rather than one benefiting legal professionals.
Decision no. 108/13.05.2024, by which the Cluj Bar Association prohibits the use of web domains.
The argument put forth by the Cluj Bar Association is that through this initiative, they are applying Law 11/1991to prevent unfair competition.
In our opinion, however, the decision lacks a degree of proportionality and effectively prohibits a modern online presence for lawyers. We will discuss the technical aspects below.
The solution was voted on almost unanimously, the only opposing lawyer being Mr. Chertes Dan, who publicly protested the decision of the Cluj Bar Association, where he serves as a local councilor.
Thus, he submits a memorandum to the UNBR in which he substantiates his dissatisfaction with the solution, which he publicly contests:
Dan Chertes
The next morning, Clujust publish an article showing that in fact, Dan Chertes may have been targeted by the solutionsince it had the domain avocaturaltfel.ro.
Through Social Media, Dan Chertes criticized the aforementioned article, learning from sources that he continued the discussion in lawyer groups on Facebook, sparking quite intense debates.
On July 11, while awaiting the CUNBR's solution regarding this initiative, it published an article attempting to explain why advertising on Google or domain names does not constitute unfair competition:
Dan Chertes
This morning, he published an article clarifying that UNBR has proposed a solution, which involves the acceptance and dissemination of this interpretation at the national level.
Technical aspects to consider
It is true that in the past, owning web domains that contained relevant keywords for the business sector could significantly influence positioning in Google search engine results.
This practice, known as "Exact Match Domain" (EMD), allowed websites to gain a competitive advantage simply by choosing a domain name that included key terms for their industry.
However, as time passed and search algorithms evolved, Google recognized the potential negative impact of this phenomenon on the quality of search results and, consequently, on its own advertising business.
If users were unable to find the desired results and migrated to other search engines, this would directly impact Google's advertising revenue. It was in their interest to ensure that search results are relevant, high-quality, and trustworthy, in order to keep users on their platform and provide them with a superior search experience.
In 2012, Google implemented a significant update to its algorithm, known as the "Exact Match Domain Update" (EMD Update).
This update aimed to limit the unfair advantage gained by websites through the mere use of relevant keyword domains.
In practice, Google has introduced new ranking factors and adjusted the importance given to domain names in its algorithm, so that sites with generic domains no longer receive an artificial boost in rankings.
It is important to note that Google's algorithm is in a constant state of evolution, with frequent updates aimed at improving the quality and relevance of search results. Sometimes, certain strategies deemed malicious or that exploit vulnerabilities in the algorithm may work in the short term.
However, these do not constitute solid evidence of long-term effectiveness and can be quickly countered by subsequent updates to the algorithm.
An analysis of search results for highly competitive geographic areas and fields of activity, such as legal services in Bucharest or Cluj, will show that sectors with keywords do not necessarily appear in the top positions of the rankings.
The reason some websites do not rank well in search results is not necessarily related to the chosen domain, but rather to the lack of efforts in search engine optimization (SEO) and the overall quality of the site.
Good positioning on Google is influenced by a multitude of factors, including:
- Quality and relevance of content: Websites that provide original, well-structured, informative, and relevant content for users' needs are more likely to rank higher in search results. Developing educational articles that address the questions and needs of potential clients can significantly enhance the site's visibility.
- Technical optimization of the website: Factors such as loading speed, mobile device compatibility, navigation structure, optimized meta descriptions and title tags, as well as the correct use of HTML semantic elements, can positively influence a website's ranking in search results.
- Backlinks (links received from other websites): The number and quality of backlinks received from other relevant and trustworthy websites are an important factor in Google's algorithm. These links are viewed as "votes of confidence" and indicate that the site provides valuable content and is an authority in its field. The absence of links from trusted sources, such as press articles, mentions in industry publications, or from other authorities in the field, can negatively impact the site's ranking.
The E-E-A-T principles are not related to industry keywords or URLs.
Desi Google constantly updates its algorithms, the "rules" - meaning the EEAT standard promoted by them - remain consistent and are not anti-competitive in any way. A copy of this is presented below.
However, if we analyze the guidelines above, we can see that Google does not include keyword evaluation as part of its ranking strategy. Instead, there are other methods by which they try to determine the value of a website for users.
Similar to how academic articles are evaluated based on the number of citations they receive, websites are assessed by Google according to their "popularity" and "citations" online. A lack of quality backlinks is one of the main factors that prevents a site from ranking well in search results, regardless of the chosen field.
It is true that, in the absence of other strong differentiating factors, Google may give a slight preference to domains that include the searched keywords. However, this effect is minor compared to the impact of other ranking factors, such as content quality, technical optimization, and the site's backlink profile.
Moreover, even if the use of generic domains is discouraged or prohibited, this should not be used as a justification to penalize individuals or companies that have developed strong and recognizable brands.
Regardless of whether these brands are officially registered as trademarks or not, they should be allowed and protected, as long as they do not infringe on the intellectual property rights of other entities.
From a technical perspective and best practices in the SEO field, the arguments that using generic domain names constitutes unfair competition or significantly influences rankings in Google results are not supported by the current realities of the industry.
The most important ranking factors are related to the quality and relevance of the website, ongoing optimization efforts, and building a strong and trustworthy online presence.
To have a clear and objective view of the real impact of generic domain names versus brand names in the legal field, it would be interesting and useful to conduct a comprehensive and rigorous study on ranking trends in Romania and the impact of keywords at the national level.
A study like this could analyze a representative sample of websites belonging to lawyers and law firms, comparing the search performance of those with generic domains versus those with branded domains.
Additionally, such a study should consider other relevant factors, such as the age of the websites, the quality and quantity of content, the backlink profile, as well as the SEO optimization efforts made by each site. Only by isolating and controlling these variables can valid conclusions be drawn regarding the actual impact of domain names on search engine rankings.
Decision lacking technical foundation
Even without such a study, from a technical perspective and considering best practices in the SEO field, the decision to limit or prohibit the use of certain generic domain names in the legal industry does not seem to have a solid justification. The real reasons behind such a decision appear to be more related to the desire to protect the market share and economic interests of existing players, rather than to improve performance, service quality, or the overall image of the profession.
It is important that any regulation or decision affecting how professionals can promote their services online is based on concrete data, a deep understanding of current technological realities, and the principles of fair and transparent competition.
The artificial limitation of domain name options, without an objective and solid justification, can have negative effects on innovation, commercial freedom of expression, and the ability of lawyers, especially those at the beginning of their careers, to build a strong online presence and attract new clients.
At the same time, it is essential for legal professionals to recognize the importance of investing time and resources in developing high-quality websites that are rich in relevant content and properly optimized for search engines.
While web domains may have some influence, they are neither the only nor the most important component of online success. Lawyers and law firms should focus on creating an authentic, informative online presence that is client-centered, regardless of the chosen field.
In today's digital age, where most potential clients search for legal information and services online, it is crucial for professionals in the field to understand and adapt to the ever-changing demands and expectations of the public. This involves not only optimizing websites for search engines but also developing quality content, cultivating an active presence on relevant social media, and building a solid and trustworthy reputation in the online environment.
Ultimately, success in attracting and retaining clients in the legal industry will depend on the ability of lawyers and law firms to provide high-quality services, understand and respond to the specific needs of clients, and differentiate themselves in an authentic and valuable way within the competitive online landscape.
Conclusion
I am personally disappointed by the mentality of sanctioning what we do not understand, of prohibiting progress, and punishing lawyers at the beginning of their careers. Although in a democratic country, the legal profession should have a liberal inclination, with a more permissive character given the very nature of the profession, in Romania, the legal field is merely a shadow of the larger system - one that is authoritarian, restrictive, and punishes those who try to stand out from the crowd.
If I can't find rent in Cluj as a student, I will sue the municipality for unfair competition. I believe it's only fair that lawyers should not occupy space in the city center, as there aren't enough spaces for all lawyers, creating unfair competition.
And perhaps it's unfair competition, especially since I have a degree in economics while others do not when we apply for a job. Any competition we dislike is considered unfair.
