Why the .Law Domain May Become a Necessity for Firms
The road toward wide adoption of the .law domain by law firms may be long, but it gained a significant user when Wiley recently rebranded.
January 21, 2020 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
Recently, Am Law 200 law firm Wiley not only shortened its name, but also swapped its .com web domain for .law.
While Wiley's domain move is uncommon in the legal industry, observers say it will likely become a necessity as law firms attempt to assure clients' potential cybersecurity concerns and rebrand themselves.
The overall rebranding was a strategy to refocus on the wider array of practices the firm offers while still maintaining the name recognition earned from previous successes, Wiley said. Likewise, the switch to .law was also strategic to further its branding as a legal authority and give prospective clients greater assurance, the firm said.
Noting the bar license verification required to register a .law domain, Wiley partner David Weslow said potential clients have a greater confidence that the law firm website they clicked on is owned by an actual law firm.
"The consumer knows the site they're reaching is legitimate and not a scam site," Weslow said, noting reports of consumers being duped by fraudulent sites.
Absent the verification, the steps to registering a .law domain are minimal, noted Christa Taylor, chief marketing officer of Minds + Machines, a top-level domain provider that owns the .law registry.
Taylor noted that Minds + Machines is a wholesaler that sells .law and other top-level domains to registrars and resellers. The variety of registrars causes the price of .law domain to vary, she added. However, Wiley confirmed it paid under $200 to acquire its new .law domain.
To be sure, the .law domain hasn't caught on with law firms. Robert Algeri of law firm website design company Great Jakes Marketing said one of the factors holding back .law is muscle memory,
"If you already have a good .com domain, the safest course of action is to stick with it," he said. "People will reflexively go to .com."
Still, Algeri said the .law domain is "short and sweet" and will eventually become more common.
".Law isn't a trend yet but it will become a trend," Algeri said. "The reason is due to another trend that is affecting law firms. Law firms are shortening their name just as Wiley Rein has shortened its name to Wiley. As the name shortening trend continues, they won't be able to find a corresponding .com." For Wiley's part, the firm said it decided to switch its domain to .law early during rebranding discussions.
Still, as a host of law firms continue to trim their names to match the sleek and modern branding of their corporate clients, security consultants warn previously owned domains can't be forgotten.
"The risks are minimal as long as the company owns the previous domain names, and keeps extending them before the domain registration expires," wrote Iron Bastion information security consultant and researcher Gabor Szathmari in an email. "In case the domain name registration is not extended for any reason in the distant future, an attacker can simply reregister the domain name to assume control."
Someone could choose to restore the email service or set up a fake website on the former domain name to deceive former clients or employees, he said. To prevent potential phishing schemes, Szathmari suggested firms submit a change of web address notification to search engines to migrate results from the old site to the new site.
He also recommended updating the firm's web servers, reconfiguring email systems and a host of other tasks when switching domains.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
- 211 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
- 3In-House Moves of Month: Discover Fills Awkward CLO Opening, Allegion GC Lasts Just 3 Months
- 4Delaware Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 5'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250