Impersonating a Brand’s Counsel During Negotiations

The domain name industry is built on transactions, and at the heart of those transactions lies negotiation. Investors buy and sell digital assets, corporations acquire domains for strategic branding, and intermediaries—brokers, attorneys, consultants—facilitate the deals. Negotiation in this context is often high-stakes, especially when it involves premium names or domains incorporating valuable trademarks. Because large sums are involved, and because counterparties often lack transparency into each other’s identities or intentions, negotiation is also a space vulnerable to manipulation. One of the most egregious abuses that has surfaced in the industry is the impersonation of a brand’s legal counsel during negotiations. This practice is not only unethical but is legally perilous, exposing perpetrators to fraud charges, wire fraud statutes, identity theft laws, and permanent reputational ruin. From an economic perspective, impersonating counsel may appear to create leverage in the short term, but it is a tactic that destabilizes trust in the domain marketplace and carries consequences far greater than any potential profit.

The mechanics of such impersonation usually involve a domain registrant or broker pretending to be an attorney representing a brand. For example, a registrant holding a domain related to a major corporation might create an email address resembling that of the company’s law firm and contact the corporation, framing the communication as part of a negotiation. The impersonator might claim that the brand risks losing a valuable domain unless it pays a settlement, or they may fabricate the impression of legal pressure to push for a sale. In other cases, impersonation happens in reverse, where a registrant dealing with a broker or third party claims to be the brand’s lawyer to discourage higher offers or to manipulate the flow of negotiations. In either form, the essence of the misconduct is the same: the registrant is deliberately misrepresenting themselves as legal counsel to gain financial advantage.

The legal liabilities in this context are sweeping. Impersonating an attorney is itself unlawful, constituting the unauthorized practice of law in many jurisdictions. When the impersonation involves specific brands and is carried out electronically, it also triggers wire fraud statutes, which criminalize schemes to obtain money through false pretenses using interstate or international communications. Each email, phone call, or message can constitute a separate count of wire fraud, carrying penalties of up to 20 years in prison per count. If the impersonation involves using the name or identity of a real attorney, identity theft charges may also apply. In the United States, aggravated identity theft carries mandatory prison sentences, leaving little room for leniency. Beyond criminal law, civil liability is significant: companies that discover impersonation may sue for fraud, misrepresentation, and damages tied to reputational harm or disruption of negotiations.

From an industry perspective, impersonating counsel corrodes the trust that underpins domain transactions. Negotiations in this field are already fraught with suspicion, as registrants and brands often have adversarial relationships due to the prevalence of trademark disputes. When a brand cannot be confident that the person on the other end of an email is who they claim to be, they are less likely to engage in good-faith discussions. This leads to more disputes, more arbitration filings, and more litigation, which raises costs for all parties. Investors who might otherwise profit from selling legitimate, non-infringing domains see reduced demand as brands increasingly default to enforcement actions rather than negotiation. In this way, impersonation damages not only the perpetrators but also the broader economics of domain investing.

The reputational consequences for those caught impersonating counsel are permanent. Once a registrant is exposed as having fabricated legal credentials, they are effectively ostracized from the industry. Brokers, registrars, and marketplaces rely on credibility to function, and they cannot risk association with individuals known to engage in fraud. Payment processors and escrow services may terminate accounts linked to such misconduct, leaving perpetrators unable to conduct even legitimate transactions. News of impersonation also travels quickly in professional circles, and the stigma makes it impossible to rebuild trust. For an investor or broker, this reputational collapse is career-ending, even before legal consequences are considered.

Economically, the risks outweigh any potential gains. The profits from impersonation are speculative at best—a registrant might secure a quick payment or artificially suppress a counterparty’s negotiating stance—but the costs are immense once the scheme is uncovered. Brands do not hesitate to involve law enforcement when impersonation of their counsel occurs, because it strikes at the integrity of the legal process itself. Prosecutors view these cases as particularly serious because they involve deliberate deception designed to interfere with rights holders’ ability to defend their intellectual property. This makes impersonators prime candidates for prosecution, where sentences can include restitution, fines, and imprisonment. Even when cases do not escalate to criminal charges, civil damages can exceed any profit made, as companies can argue that the impersonation caused them to incur additional legal fees, lost opportunities, or reputational injury.

Real-world examples demonstrate how impersonation of counsel backfires. In several instances, individuals posing as attorneys for major corporations attempted to negotiate with registrants or third parties, only to be quickly exposed when companies confirmed that the emails did not come from their legal teams. These incidents not only resulted in the collapse of negotiations but triggered investigations that uncovered broader patterns of fraud. Courts and arbitration panels take such conduct as conclusive evidence of bad faith, meaning that any domains involved are almost automatically transferred to the brand. Thus, rather than strengthening their negotiating position, impersonators guarantee that they lose the domains at issue.

The act of impersonating counsel also destabilizes the economics of legitimate legal representation in the domain space. Attorneys who work in intellectual property and domain disputes rely on clear communication with clients, counterparties, and tribunals. When impersonators insert themselves into this process, they not only defraud the brand but also undermine the credibility of the legal profession. This creates friction that harms everyone: companies spend more on verification and security, attorneys face increased skepticism, and the process of resolving disputes becomes more cumbersome. For domain investors who operate legitimately, this results in longer timelines and higher costs when negotiating sales with corporate buyers, because the specter of impersonation forces brands to route everything through formal legal channels rather than straightforward discussions.

Ultimately, impersonating a brand’s counsel during negotiations is one of the most destructive tactics imaginable in the domain name industry. It is not merely sharp practice; it is outright fraud with criminal dimensions. The apparent leverage it creates is fleeting, while the risks are overwhelming. Perpetrators face criminal prosecution, civil liability, domain forfeiture, and permanent reputational destruction. The industry as a whole suffers collateral damage as trust erodes and brands disengage from negotiations in favor of enforcement. For serious investors, the lesson could not be clearer: negotiations must be built on transparency, honesty, and legitimacy. The long-term economics of domain investing reward those who foster trust, not those who exploit deception. Impersonating legal counsel is not a negotiation tactic—it is a self-destructive act that ends careers, invites prosecution, and undermines the stability of the entire marketplace.

The domain name industry is built on transactions, and at the heart of those transactions lies negotiation. Investors buy and sell digital assets, corporations acquire domains for strategic branding, and intermediaries—brokers, attorneys, consultants—facilitate the deals. Negotiation in this context is often high-stakes, especially when it involves premium names or domains incorporating valuable trademarks. Because large…