Law firms: the numbers, the rules, the AI picture.

• ABA Model Rule 7.1: false or misleading communications

  A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. The ABA's August 2018 amendments left the black-letter text of Rule 7.1 unchanged and added guidance in the comments. One point: truthful information can mislead if it makes consumers believe they must act when no action is required.

  What it means: This is the rule behind almost every compliance question about a website. It covers every page, post, ad and social profile. Do not state results you cannot support, do not imply urgency that does not exist, and review old content on a schedule, because a once-true page can become misleading.

  [4] ctbar.org

• California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2(c), 7.4 and 7.5

  California's Rule 7.1(a) defines a false or misleading communication as one with a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or one that omits a fact needed so the whole is not misleading. The comments say an express guarantee of a result is misleading. A no-fee-without-recovery claim must say whether the client is liable for costs. Truthful results or testimonials can mislead if they create an unjustified expectation. Rule 7.2(c) requires the name and address of a responsible lawyer or firm. Rule 7.4 limits who may call themselves a certified specialist.

  What it means: Do not write guarantees. Add clear qualifying language next to any result or testimonial, and keep records that support each result. Put the firm name and address on the site. Use the word specialist only where your state allows it. California treats URLs and logos as part of the firm name under Rule 7.5, so your domain must not mislead either.

  [5] calbar.ca.gov

• Rules 7.2(b) and 7.3: paying for recommendations and soliciting clients

  Rule 7.2(b) generally bars giving anything of value to someone for recommending a lawyer. Exceptions include paying the reasonable cost of advertising and the usual charges of a qualified lawyer referral service. The ABA's 2018 comments allow paying for leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and its communications comply with Rule 7.1. Rule 7.3 limits direct solicitation. California's comment says a website, a banner ad or an automatic response to an Internet search is not solicitation. California's text still covers real-time electronic contact, which the ABA's 2018 model no longer prohibits.

  What it means: Paying an agency, designer or ad platform is allowed, but the firm is responsible for their output (see Rule 5.3 on supervising non-lawyers). Be careful with lead-generation vendors that look like independent recommendations. Do not text, call or chat-message people who did not ask to hear from you until your state rule is checked. Ask your regulator before running any referral-fee or revenue-share arrangement.

  [5] calbar.ca.gov

• Texas Disciplinary Rules 7.04 and 7.05: filing requirements for websites

  Texas requires advertisements of legal services to be filed with its Advertising Review Committee within ten days after first use. Filing needs an application and a fee set by the bar. For law firm websites, Rule 7.05(b) exempts information and links except the homepage, so the homepage is the part generally filed. Comment 2 adds that the whole website must still comply with Rules 7.01 and 7.02. A lawyer can seek voluntary pre-approval at least 30 days before first use.

  What it means: If you practise in Texas, treat a homepage redesign as a filing event, not just a launch. More generally, check whether your state requires filing, labels such as Attorney Advertising, or record retention. Florida and New York, for example, publish their own detailed advertising rules. Never assume the rule of the state your agency works in.

  [6] legalethicstexas.com

• ABA Model Rule 1.18 and Formal Opinion 10-457: website inquiries and prospective clients

  Under Rule 1.18, a lawyer who discusses a possible engagement with a prospective client generally cannot use or reveal what the person said. Conflicts can follow. ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 (August 5, 2010) tells lawyers to assume a website inquiry may come from a prospective client. The risk is highest when the site invites people to click for a free consultation. It says warnings can limit obligations, but only if they are reasonably understandable, properly placed and not misleading.

  What it means: Put a short, plain notice beside every contact form and chat widget: no lawyer-client relationship exists yet, do not send confidential details, and site content is not legal advice. Put it before the submit button, not in the footer. Review chatbots and call-answering tools with the same lens, because they collect the same information.

  [7] abajournal.com

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 and Formal Opinion 496: responding to online reviews

  ABA Formal Opinion 496 (January 13, 2021) says the main concern in answering a negative online review is confidentiality of client information. It concludes a negative review alone does not justify disclosure under the self-defense exception, and urges lawyers to consider not responding at all. A lawyer may ask the host to remove content, and may invite the reviewer to talk privately.

  What it means: Write one safe reply template and use it every time: a short, generic note that does not confirm the person was a client and moves the conversation offline. Never discuss facts of a matter in a public reply, even to correct an error. Train everyone who manages the Google profile.

  [8] abajournal.com

• FTC rule on consumer reviews and testimonials (16 CFR Part 465)

  The FTC's rule, effective October 21, 2024, prohibits fake or false reviews and testimonials. It also bans paying for reviews conditioned on sentiment, undisclosed insider reviews and passing off a company-controlled site as independent. Review suppression through threats and fake social media indicators are banned too. Courts can impose civil penalties for knowing violations. The FTC's guidance says agencies and reputation management firms are not immune.

  What it means: Do not write your own reviews, pay for good ones or filter who you ask. Tell staff and relatives that insider reviews need a clear disclosure. Check what your agency or reputation vendor actually does. The FTC page does not single out law firms, so confirm with your own counsel how it applies alongside your bar rules on testimonials.

  [9] ftc.gov

• Canada (Model Code Rule 4.2-1) and England and Wales (SRA Transparency Rules)

  The Federation of Law Societies of Canada's Model Code allows marketing only if it is demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable, not misleading and in the public's best interest. Its commentary warns against quoting recoveries or success rates without a statement that results vary, suggesting superiority, and emotional testimonials. Provinces adopt it with differences. In England and Wales the SRA's Transparency Rules, introduced from December 2018, and the clickable SRA logo, required on websites from November 2019, govern what firms must publish.

  What it means: A US-style page copied into a Canadian or UK firm can breach local rules. Superlatives such as best or number one are a particular risk in Canada, where Ontario treats them as contraventions. UK firms should publish required price and service information in plain English and show the SRA logo. Confirm every item with the law society or the SRA.

  [10] cba.org

This is general information about marketing rules, not legal advice. Advertising and solicitation rules differ by state, province and country and change often. Check the current rules with your own regulator, bar association or ethics counsel before publishing.