Parloff found that on one of the sites, the notice that it was "sponsored by" a particular law firm didn't print when the home page was reproduced. "Sponsored by" itself is misleading on these sites, which are not just "sponsored by" but are in fact "created and wholly operated by," despite site titles like " the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center." Doesn't "Center" suggest a non-profit organization dedicated to providing information about the disease? But there is only a "center" if you call a website a "center." The legal ethics rules, which declare it dishonest for a solo practitioner to put "..and Associates" next to his name, don't quite cover this trick, but it is just as misleading. Parloff also points out that these sites have .org domain addresses, which suggest, and are intended to suggest, non-profit status. But use of the .org designation isn't regulated. Again, the trick falls just short of punishable professional dishonesty.

When Parloff raised the issue, he attracted predictably indignant and ethically-muddled attacks from, you guess it, trial lawyers.

"Parloff- I have an idea for an article you'll never write," responded one. "Interview some victims of Mesothelioma. How about the wife whose husband made $3.50 an hour in a factory for 40 years. This was after he served our great nation proudly in the military. At night she washed his clothes for him after cooking what she could afford to buy for groceries, all the while inhaling asbestos fibers found on his shirt. The Doctor has just given her 4 months to live and her lungs are filled with fluid. The multi-millionaire CEO of ABC Corporation who spent $500k last year on lobbyists doesn't want to pay, even though his predecessors knew.

"Look her in the face and share your opinions about how this whole thing is a farce and listen to her tell you (assuming she can breath at this point long enough to speak) how much pain she is in. Maybe next, after you tell her about your most recent trip to Italy, she can tell you her plan for her family not being on the street after she dies."

In other words, this disease is so bad it justifies us deceiving the victims so they can get our help and collect damages, with us getting 40% , of course, but that's beside the point.

Right.

Another wrote: "Why don't you write an article about how nobody in the main-steam media is talking about this terrible disease? A disease that is the direct result of greedy corporate America?"

And how, exactly, does this excuse deceptive websites?

Ethically, this isn't rocket science. A law firm that creates a website about a particular disease has an obligation not to hide, mask, or otherwise misrepresent the fact that it is created by the firm. But this would make potential clients suspicious of their motives, you say? Too bad. Tricks like this are why they are suspicious. When someone says they are withholding all the facts from someone for their own good, check your wallet.

Deception isn't ethical. The fact that these sites just barely comport with the legal profession's ethics rules (they don't directly solicit clients, for example) doesn't change the fact that the firms creating them go to some lengths to disguise their origins.

That's deceptive. That's unethical.