Table of Contents

There’s a growing narrative floating around in legal marketing circles, mostly pushed by one prominent voice: Angel Reyes.

Reyes, a personal injury lawyer based in Texas, has been telling anyone who will listen that brand doesn’t matter anymore.

That all you need is a data-driven digital marketing strategy.

That catchy slogans, big-name recognition, and mass-media branding are relics of the past.

But here’s the thing: while Reyes publicly discredits brand-building, behind the curtain, he’s aggressively bidding on the branded search terms of Texas’ most well-known firms—Jim Adler, Thomas J. Henry, and others.

This contradiction isn’t just ironic. It’s strategic. And it reveals a lot about the state of legal marketing in 2025.

The Double Game: Downplay Brand, Then Bid On It

Reyes’s firm has been called out—legally and publicly—for running Google Ads that target competitor names as keywords.

In fact, the Adler v. Reyes lawsuit specifically accused his firm of using Jim Adler’s brand identity to mislead searchers, including mimicking Adler’s trademarks in ad copy and redirecting users via call scripts that disguised Reyes’s firm as Adler’s.

Let that sink in.

If branding didn’t matter… why spend thousands of dollars bidding on the names of firms who’ve built their brand over decades? For one simple reason:

Because it works.

People search for “Jim Adler” when they’re in trouble. Reyes knows that. And his firm is positioning itself to catch those searchers mid-scroll—before they click through to the real Adler site.

Is It Ethical to Bid on a Competitor’s Name?

“Legal? Yes. Ethical? Depends on how much you care about client trust.”

Let’s not dance around it: just because something’s legal doesn’t make it ethical.

Legally speaking, courts in the U.S. have generally ruled that bidding on a competitor’s name as a keyword is not trademark infringement, as long as:

  • The ad doesn’t include the trademarked name in the copy (unless permitted).
  • The ad doesn’t mislead consumers into believing it’s affiliated with or endorsed by the trademark holder.
  • The landing page clearly identifies the advertiser and does not create brand confusion.

In Adler v. Reyes, the issue wasn’t merely bidding on “Jim Adler”—it was the alleged use of that name in call scripts, ad copy, and redirect tactics that blurred the line between competitive advertising and consumer deception.

So while Reyes might argue that his firm is operating within legal bounds, the ethical line is murkier.

Here’s why:

  1. It exploits another firm’s goodwill. Jim Adler, Thomas J. Henry, and others have invested millions over decades building brands that consumers recognize. Piggybacking off that to lure clients—without offering something substantively different—raises ethical questions.
  2. It undermines informed consumer choice. If someone searches “Jim Adler lawyer” and ends up calling Reyes’s office thinking it’s Adler’s… even once… that’s not just a marketing win—that’s misdirection.
  3. It creates a race to the bottom. If everyone starts poaching brand terms, branding becomes a liability instead of an asset. No firm would bother building long-term brand equity if others can hijack it with a few AdWords clicks.
  4. It risks misleading vulnerable clients. Let’s not forget: many personal injury clients are in crisis. They’re not always tech-savvy or even fully aware of who they’re contacting. Misleading ads in this space aren’t just shady—they’re predatory.

And here’s the kicker: many of these firms preaching “brand doesn’t matter” wouldn’t dare let their competitors bid on their names. They know the power of a brand. They’re just hoping others forget.

💡
In fact, Thomas J. Henry Law recently filed a federal trademark lawsuit against Reyes, accusing his firm of misusing Henry’s name in paid search campaigns. The complaint echoes similar issues raised in Adler v. Reyes—including allegations of consumer confusion, deceptive ad language, and unlawful appropriation of brand equity.

While some might view this as a turf war, it’s actually a broader defense of brand equity in legal marketing. Thomas J. Henry’s lawsuit draws a clear line in the sand: if you build a reputation, your competitors shouldn’t be allowed to hijack it in search results.

Digital Poaching, or Smart Strategy?

Let’s be fair.

Bidding on a competitor’s name as a Google Ads keyword isn’t illegal by default. In fact, courts have consistently upheld the practice—as long as the ad doesn’t mislead users or misuse trademarked language.

For example, in 1-800 Contacts v. JAND, the Second Circuit ruled that simply purchasing a competitor’s trademark as a keyword does not constitute infringement unless it causes actual consumer confusion.

The trend isn’t limited to one jurisdiction: in a growing number of rulings, courts are signaling that buying competitor trademarks for keyword advertising alone is not a violation.

However, the Ninth Circuit has been asked to weigh in more recently, in a case questioning whether bidding on a competitor’s Google keywords can be considered trademark infringement. The outcome of that decision could influence how far the gray area stretches—especially in high-stakes industries like personal injury law.

And to Reyes’s credit, he’s not hiding it. He’s even co-authored academic papers defending the tactic, calling it consumer-friendly and pro-competition.

But here’s where it gets messy.

You can’t publicly dismiss branding as irrelevant while privately spending large chunks of your ad budget capitalizing on someone else’s brand equity. That’s not “data-driven strategy”—that’s brand arbitrage.

Reyes Says Branding Is Dead—AI Disagrees

Brand mentions = entity recognition = authority. Plain and simple.

AI-powered search (like Google’s AI Overviews and Search Generative Experience) relies heavily on natural language understanding, not just keywords anymore.

One of the things that AI picks up on is the strength of your brand. This includes:

  • Branded mentions in third-party articles, forums, reviews, and even legal pubs
  • Consistent brand presence across web properties (website, social media, citations)
  • Recognition as an expert on subject-matter making it a trusted source
✔️
Basically, the more your name comes up, the more you’re known. And the more you’re known, the more likely it is that AI will surface your content in response to complex legal searches.

AI Overviews Are Selective, Not Democratic

Google’s AI summaries don’t cite the “best optimized” content—they cite the most informationally authoritative content.

Firms like Jim Adler and Thomas J. Henry, who’ve spent years (and millions) branding themselves on and offline, are far more likely to get surfaced than an equally competent, but generic, competitor.

💡
That AI-driven advantage only amplifies the core debate: clicks are temporary, brand perception is permanent.

So, Reyes’s Stance? Short-Sighted.

By saying “branding doesn’t matter,” he’s:

  • Ignoring how entity prominence affects AI-driven visibility
  • Betting on short-term arbitrage (SEM bidding) instead of long-term search survivability
  • Pretending that being found is the same as being cited or trusted

And that’s a dangerous bet in the coming AI-first search landscape.

Why Branding Still Matters More Than Ever

Look—this isn’t about protecting sacred cows.

The truth is, personal injury law is one of the most brutally competitive verticals in digital marketing. Everyone wants their slice of the SEM pie, and cost-per-clicks in Texas are some of the highest in the country.

But let’s be completely real:

  • Brand is still the moat. When a potential client searches for your name, that’s the holy grail of intent.
  • Your brand is your insurance policy. Against rising CPCs. Against new competitors. Against Google’s ever-changing algorithm.
  • And most importantly—it’s the long game. A brand can’t be copied or outbid easily. And that’s exactly why Reyes is targeting them.

What Law Firms Should Take Away from This

  1. Don’t take your brand for granted. If competitors are bidding on your name, that’s proof it holds value. Defend it with paid search, organic SEO, and consistent messaging.
  2. Look beyond ROI dashboards. Performance marketing matters, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of long-term brand equity. If you turn off all your digital ads tomorrow, would people still know who you are?
  3. Be wary of the “data-only” pitch. Numbers tell a story—but not the whole story. Clients hire brands they trust, not just ads they click.
  4. Consider your own strategy. Are you investing in becoming the name people search for? Or are you just hoping to show up next to the names they already know?

My Final Thoughts

Angel Reyes isn’t the enemy. He’s just playing a different game—and playing it well. But if you’re a law firm with a name, a reputation, and a client base, don’t be fooled.

In 2025 and beyond, brand is no longer just a marketing asset, it’s a ranking signal. Especially in YMYL niches like law.

So, while Reyes might win some clicks, strong brands are winning search real estate and AI trust.

Brand isn’t dead. It’s the very thing keeping you in the conversation.

And if someone is bidding on your name?

That’s your cue to double down on it.

Want to know how your brand stacks up in the AI-driven search era?
Let’s run a branding audit and see if you’re showing up where it counts.
👉 Book A Consultation with Me

🛡️Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s informed opinion and commentary based on publicly available information, including legal filings and industry publications. All claims or references to individuals or companies are made for purposes of education, critique, and professional discussion, and are protected under the First Amendment and applicable fair comment laws.

Categorized in:

Insights, Legal Ethics,