Lawyer advertising rules come from state bar rules modeled on ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. They ban false or misleading claims, limit paid referrals and restrict live solicitation. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) and Rule 3.6 (trial publicity) also limit what a lawyer or a PR team can say about clients and cases. Each state adopts its own version, so one press release can pass in one state and violate the rules in another.
Last updated October 10, 2026. This page explains how bar rules apply to lawyer marketing and PR. It is not legal advice, and each lawyer must check the current rules in every state where the lawyer is licensed.
What Do the ABA Model Rules Say About Lawyer Marketing and PR?
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are a template, not law: the American Bar Association publishes them, and each state's highest court adopts them, usually with changes, as binding rules for lawyers in that state. The ABA does not regulate lawyers directly.
DefinitionABA Model Rules of Professional ConductThe reference framework for lawyer conduct rules in the United States. Maintained by the ABA House of Delegates. Adopted in varying forms by every U.S. state and the District of Columbia.
Six Model Rules govern most lawyer communications. The table shows what each rule covers and where PR and marketing teams run into it.
| Rule | Subject | Where PR teams meet it |
|---|
| 7.1 | Communications concerning a lawyer's services | Every bio, press release, post and ad |
| 7.2 | Advertising mechanics and payment for recommendations | Paid media, directories, influencers, referral fees |
| 7.3 | Solicitation of clients | Direct outreach to people who need a lawyer |
| 1.6 | Confidentiality of information | Case announcements, client names, testimonials |
| 3.6 | Trial publicity | Press statements during an active matter |
| 5.5 | Unauthorized practice of law and multijurisdictional practice | Content that reaches readers in states where the lawyer is not licensed, and AI legal tools |
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), held that lawyer advertising is protected commercial speech and ended the categorical ban that had applied for decades. Three later Supreme Court cases set the limits of that protection.
| Case | What it decided |
|---|
| Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) | Truthful, nondeceptive lawyer ads, including illustrations, are protected, and a state may require reasonable disclosures such as fee terms. |
| Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988) | A state may not ban truthful, targeted direct-mail solicitation letters. |
| Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995) | A 30-day waiting period before direct-mail solicitation of accident victims was upheld. |
What Does Rule 7.1 Prohibit in Lawyer Ads and Press Releases?
Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or leaves out a fact needed to keep the statement, read as a whole, from misleading. The August 2018 ABA amendments, summarized in a Connecticut Bar report, folded the old specialization and firm-name rules (7.4 and 7.5) into Rules 7.1 and 7.2.
Rule 7.1 typically reaches four kinds of statements:
- Claims about results that omit material context
- Comparative claims that cannot be substantiated
- Statements about specialization that imply formal certification where none exists
- Testimonials that create unjustified expectations
| Claim in a release or bio | Risk under Rule 7.1 | Safer approach |
|---|
| Past verdict or settlement | Omits the facts that produced the result | Name the court and year, and state that results depend on the facts of each case |
| "Best" or "leading" | A superlative that cannot be substantiated | Cite a named ranking, its publisher, its year and its selection method |
| "Specialist" or "expert" | Implies formal certification | Say the lawyer focuses on or practices in the area, unless an accredited body has certified the lawyer |
| Client testimonial | Creates unjustified expectations | Add a plain statement that outcomes vary |
Florida shows how specific a state can be. Florida's Rule 4-7.13 treats past results that are not objectively verifiable as deceptive, and The Florida Bar publishes a checklist for websites, social media and video sharing that lists each prohibited pattern.
Illustrative scenario: a firm's release says its team won a $12 million verdict. Under Rule 7.1, the release should name the court and the year and say the amount reflects the facts of that case. If the verdict was later reduced on appeal, leaving that out omits a fact needed to avoid misleading readers.
Rule 7.2 lets lawyers advertise in any medium, requires each communication to include the name and contact information of at least one responsible lawyer or firm, and bars paying others to recommend the lawyer, with limited exceptions such as advertising costs, qualifying referral services and reciprocal referral agreements. The same rule is why influencer deals, lead generation services and referral fee arrangements need review state by state, while pay-per-click advertising is generally permitted.
Rule 7.3, as amended in 2018, bars a lawyer from soliciting clients by live person-to-person contact when a significant motive is the lawyer's financial gain. The Model Rule exceptions cover contact with another lawyer, a person with a family, close personal or prior professional relationship, and a person who routinely uses that type of legal service for business. The 2018 amendment also narrowed what counts as live contact: the ABA comment excludes chat rooms, text messages and other written communications that recipients may easily disregard, as Business Law Today explains. The amendment did not make every state follow that line.
| Channel | ABA Model Rule position | Where a state may differ |
|---|
| Targeted letters and email | Not live contact, so permitted if truthful | Waiting periods apply after accidents in some states; the Supreme Court upheld Florida's 30-day period in 1995 |
| Text messages | Excluded from live contact when easily disregarded | Pennsylvania's comment says text messages are live contact, and Pennsylvania omits the routine business user exception |
| Chat rooms and written messages | Excluded from live contact | Pennsylvania also excludes chat rooms |
| Phone and video calls | Live contact, restricted unless an exception applies | Exceptions vary by state |
A lawyer can be responsible for solicitation by the people who work for the lawyer. ABA Formal Opinion 501 says that failing to train staff or vendors on Rule 7.3 can violate Rules 5.3 and 8.4(a), as an American Inns of Court column notes. A PR agency or marketing vendor that contacts prospective clients for a firm falls inside that duty.
What Do Rules 1.6 and 3.6 Limit When a Firm Talks About Its Cases?
Rule 1.6 bars a lawyer from revealing information relating to a client's representation without the client's informed consent or another recognized exception, and Rule 3.6 bars public statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), upheld that substantial likelihood standard for lawyer press statements while striking Nevada's safe-harbor language as vague.
Both rules apply to press releases, client quotes, social posts and media interviews about a live matter. The litigation PR pillar covers how to handle both rules during an active case.
Can a PR Firm Keep Its Communications With a Law Firm Privileged?
A PR firm's communications with a law firm are protected by attorney-client privilege only in some circumstances, because no separate publicist privilege exists, as the Daily Journal reported. Courts start from the rule that sharing privileged communications with a third party waives the privilege, and PR firms are third parties.
Three federal decisions in the Southern District of New York mark the range. Under United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961), a consultant hired to help a lawyer give legal advice can be inside the privilege. In Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), communications with a PR firm were not privileged where the firm gave general public relations advice. In In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), communications were privileged where lawyers hired a PR firm to help address the client's legal problems. Wiley and Arnold & Porter both warn that hiring a PR firm does not make every communication privileged.
Practitioners commonly recommend four habits to support a privilege claim. None guarantees the result, because courts look at what the PR firm actually did.
| Habit | What to do | Why it matters |
|---|
| Engagement letter | The law firm retains the PR firm, and the letter describes the work and why it is necessary to the legal advice and strategy | Courts ask whether counsel needed the PR work to advise the client |
| Work log | Keep a summary of what the PR firm did and how it informed legal strategy, without confidential detail or party names | The log can show a court that the work met the privilege standard |
| Billing | Send invoices and payment contacts to the law firm, never the client, and bill any separate PR services on a separate invoice | Payment flows show who the PR firm actually works for |
| Labels | Mark each document or email "Attorney-Client Privileged/Work Product Communications" at the top | A label helps staff spot protected files but does not create privilege by itself |
Which States Have the Strictest Lawyer Advertising Rules?
No state is strictest on every point, but Florida, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania show how far state rules can diverge from the ABA Model Rules.
| State | What is distinctive |
|---|
| Florida | Most lawyer ads must be filed with The Florida Bar for review under Rule 4-7.19, and Rule 4-7.20 exempts some categories, including law firm websites, as the Bar's filing page explains. Opinion 24-1 requires telling prospective clients when they are chatting with an AI program, per LawSites. |
| New York | Rule 7.1 requires pre-approval of every advertisement, the "Attorney Advertising" label in most cases, and a copy kept three years (one year for computer-accessed communications). NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1009 treats law firm press releases and tweets as advertisements. |
| California | The State Bar adopted new Rules of Professional Conduct in 2018 that track the ABA Model Rules more closely. Its generative AI practical guidance was approved November 16, 2023. |
| Texas | Texas keeps its own Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which follow the ABA structure but are numbered differently. Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 (February 2025) addresses generative AI, per a 2026 state AI guidance tracker. |
| Pennsylvania | Treats text messages as live person-to-person contact under Rule 7.3. |
Can Lawyers Pay Influencers or Post on TikTok?
A lawyer cannot pay an influencer to recommend the lawyer's services under Rule 7.2 except through channels the rule allows, and any influencer content about a lawyer must still satisfy Rule 7.1. A paid endorsement of a lawyer or firm must comply with four sets of rules:
- Rule 7.1, which requires every statement to be true and not misleading
- Rule 7.2, which bars paying for a recommendation outside the listed exceptions
- FTC endorsement rules, which require clear disclosure of a paid relationship
- State rules on testimonials and endorsements
The compliant pattern is a clearly disclosed relationship, truthful content, no specialization claim without certification, no solicitation framing that violates Rule 7.3, and adherence to the advertising rules of each state where the content will reach clients.
Short video creates two specific risks. A 30-second clip strips the context that Rule 7.1 requires, which makes omission the most likely violation. A video also reaches viewers in states where the lawyer is not licensed, which raises Rule 5.5 questions when the lawyer describes legal rights in general terms. The Florida Bar lets a lawyer submit an individual social media or video post for review on a voluntary basis, per its checklist for websites, social media and video sharing.
Rule 5.5 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) by non-lawyers and the practice of law by lawyers in states where they are not licensed. LegalTech companies meet the rule when a product gives legal advice, drafts custom documents or connects consumers with non-lawyer providers. The LegalTech marketing guide covers how those companies communicate within these limits.
| Tool type | Typical treatment |
|---|
| Document automation | Generally permitted with adequate disclaimers |
| AI legal research | Permitted when positioned as a research tool, not legal advice |
| AI legal advice to consumers | Contested and varies by state |
| Consumer legal forms | Generally permitted with appropriate scope limits |
| Non-lawyer-owned legal services entities | Permitted in limited jurisdictions only |
Non-lawyer ownership is governed by Rule 5.4, which restricts fee sharing with non-lawyers and non-lawyer ownership of law firms. ABA Litigation News reports that Arizona abolished its version of Rule 5.4 in 2021 and licenses alternative business structures, and that Utah launched a Supreme Court supervised regulatory sandbox in 2020, extended through 2027. The District of Columbia allows limited non-lawyer ownership. Most other states keep the traditional restriction.
How Do Bar Rules Apply to Lawyers Who Use AI?
Existing bar rules apply to lawyers' use of generative AI, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) maps them to the technology: competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), client communication (Rule 1.4), candor to the tribunal (Rules 3.1 and 3.3), supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) and fees (Rule 1.5), as Business Law Today summarizes. The opinion draws on earlier state guidance, and it is persuasive rather than binding until a state adopts it.
What Did Mata v. Avianca Decide?
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023), is the sanctions order that put AI citations on every bar's agenda. Judge P. Kevin Castel fined lawyers Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz and their firm, Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, $5,000 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for a brief citing cases that ChatGPT invented, per the court's opinion. He also ordered them to send the opinion to the judges falsely named as authors of the fake decisions, and he dismissed the underlying case the same day as time-barred, according to Legal Dive.
The order shows two separate failures. The lawyers did not check the citations, and they kept standing by them after the opposing party questioned them. The court treated the second failure as bad faith, and Legal Dive notes that owning up sooner might have avoided sanctions. The bar rules on competence and candor (Rules 1.1 and 3.3) cover the same conduct, so every lawyer who files or publishes AI-assisted work carries the duty to verify it.
Which Bars Have Issued AI Guidance for Lawyers?
The table lists the main AI guidance documents for lawyers. Most are advisory, and one is a binding court policy.
| Authority | Document | Date |
|---|
| American Bar Association | Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools | July 29, 2024 |
| State Bar of California | Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law | November 16, 2023 |
| The Florida Bar | Ethics Opinion 24-1 | January 19, 2024 |
| New York State Bar Association | Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report | April 2024 |
| New York City Bar | Formal Opinion 2024-5, Generative AI in the Practice of Law | 2024 |
| DC Bar | Ethics Opinion 388 | April 2024 |
| Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations | Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 | 2024 |
| Illinois Supreme Court | Policy on Artificial Intelligence (a court policy that covers lawyers, judges and litigants) | Announced December 18, 2024 |
| Texas Professional Ethics Committee | Opinion 705 | February 2025 |
The guidance repeats five themes: lawyers remain responsible for AI-generated content, AI use must respect confidentiality, AI output needs supervision and verification, billing for AI-assisted work must stay reasonable, and clients may need to be told about AI use in some circumstances. For marketing, the Florida opinion adds a concrete duty: a chatbot on a firm's website must tell prospective clients it is an AI program and not a lawyer.
Is AI Engine Output About a Lawyer Subject to Rule 7.1?
No bar opinion reviewed for this page treats an AI engine's description of a lawyer as that lawyer's own advertising, so the question is open. When ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Perplexity describes a firm, the answer can be wrong in ways the firm never published.
Four facts make the question hard:
- AI engines combine content from many sources, some the lawyer did not write
- An answer can state something the lawyer would never claim directly
- An answer can mislead even when each underlying source is accurate
- An answer can reach more people than most traditional advertising
EPR analysis of the likely positions, which is not a bar position: AI output the lawyer did not create is probably not the lawyer's advertising. Content the lawyer publishes to shape AI answers probably is advertising under the applicable rules. A lawyer probably cannot cause misleading AI output and then avoid Rule 7.1 by pointing to the engine. The duty of candor may also reach a lawyer who knows about a misleading AI statement and leaves a firm-controlled source uncorrected.
How Can a Law Firm Audit What AI Engines Say About It?
A law firm audits AI answers by running the same prompts about the firm in ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, recording what each says and which sources it cites, and correcting the pages the firm controls. The table is a suggested method, not a bar requirement.
| Step | Action | Output |
|---|
| 1. Build the prompt set | Write ten prompts a client would type, such as "best [practice area] lawyer in [city]" and "is [firm name] a good firm for [matter type]" | Prompt list with a run date |
| 2. Run four engines | Run every prompt in each engine on the same day | Saved raw answers |
| 3. Log claims | Mark every statement about the firm, including results, rankings and specializations, with the source domain the engine cited | Claim log |
| 4. Test against Rule 7.1 | Ask whether each claim would be misleading if the firm had published it | List of risky claims |
| 5. Fix sources | Correct firm-controlled pages and request corrections on third-party pages | Dated change log |
The Legal AI Visibility Index 2026 tracks how AI picks lawyers, and The Legal Trust & Estates AI Visibility Index ranks 50 firms across NYC and LA. For firm-side tactics, see GEO for law firms. 5WPR's compliance and crisis advisory work in this category operates at this intersection, combining substantive bar rule knowledge with citation infrastructure that ranks for compliance retrieval.
What Should a Law Firm's PR Checklist Cover Before Publishing?
A law firm's PR checklist should match each content type to the rules it triggers before anything is published. The table is an illustrative starting point.
| Content | Rules to check | Action before publishing |
|---|
| Press release on a verdict | 7.1, 1.6, 3.6; in New York, press releases count as advertisements | Add the court and year, get client consent, keep a copy for three years in New York |
| Attorney bio or practice page | 7.1 and the state specialization rules | Remove "specialist" unless an accredited body has certified the lawyer |
| Ranking or award badge | 7.1 | Name the publisher, year and selection method |
| Social post or short video | 7.1, 7.2, 5.5 | Keep the context and name the jurisdiction the post covers |
| Paid influencer post | 7.1, 7.2, FTC endorsement rules | Disclose the payment and pay only for permitted advertising, never for a recommendation |
| AI chatbot on the firm site | 7.1, 7.3, 1.6, Florida Opinion 24-1 | Disclose that it is AI and screen out people already represented by another lawyer |
| Text or email outreach | 7.3 | Check how each state defines live contact |
What Is the First Step for a Law Firm's PR Team?
The first step is to list every state where the firm's lawyers are licensed or where its content will reach clients, then apply the strictest rule among them to each channel in the checklist above. Run the AI answer audit each quarter and keep the logs. Bar rules change, so confirm the current text of each jurisdiction's rules before publishing, and use the legal PR pillar, the PR firms for lawyers playbook and the 5WPR Crisis & Litigation Communications Practice for the strategy that sits on top of these rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
⌄
What rules actually govern lawyer advertising and marketing?
⌄
Lawyer advertising and marketing is governed by state bar rules derived from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, which cover truthfulness, advertising mechanics and client solicitation. Every U.S. state and the District of Columbia has adopted some version of these rules, and local changes create additional complexity.
Can lawyers text or email potential clients?
⌄
Under the ABA Model Rule as amended in 2018, targeted letters and email are not live person-to-person contact, and the comment excludes text messages that recipients may easily disregard. States differ: Pennsylvania's comment treats text messages as live contact. A lawyer must check each state's version of Rule 7.3 before bulk texting.
What did Bates v. Arizona establish for lawyer ads?
⌄
In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that lawyer advertising is constitutionally protected commercial speech, ending the categorical prohibition on lawyer advertising that had been in place for decades.
Which states have the most distinctive lawyer advertising regimes?
⌄
Florida requires most lawyer advertisements to be filed with The Florida Bar for review, with exemptions that include law firm websites. New York requires pre-approval, an "Attorney Advertising" label in most cases and three-year retention of most advertisements. California adopted new rules in 2018 that track the ABA Model Rules more closely, and Pennsylvania treats text messages as live contact.
Are law firm press releases lawyer advertising?
⌄
In New York, yes. NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1009 treats law firm press releases and tweets aimed at potential clients as advertisements, so they need pre-approval and retention, and tweets need the "Attorney Advertising" label. Other states may treat press releases differently, so check the rules where the firm is licensed.
Can lawyers pay influencers to promote their services?
⌄
Rule 7.2 generally prohibits lawyers from paying others to recommend their services, with limited exceptions, so influencer deals need review before signing. Any content must also satisfy Rule 7.1, FTC disclosure rules for paid endorsements and the advertising rules of each state where it will be seen.
What happened to the lawyers in Mata v. Avianca?
⌄
On June 22, 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned two lawyers and their firm $5,000 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing a brief that cited cases ChatGPT invented. The court found bad faith because the lawyers kept standing by the citations after they were questioned, and it ordered them to send the opinion to the judges falsely named in the fake decisions.
Can a PR firm's communications with a law firm be privileged?
⌄
Sometimes. No separate publicist privilege exists, but courts have protected communications where lawyers hired a PR firm to help address a client's legal problems, and have denied protection where the firm gave general public relations advice. The engagement terms and the actual work both matter.
Is AI engine output about a lawyer subject to Rule 7.1?
⌄
The question is open. No bar opinion reviewed for this page treats an AI engine's description of a lawyer as the lawyer's own advertising. A lawyer should still audit what AI engines say about the firm and correct the sources the firm controls.
Where is non-lawyer ownership of legal services permitted?
⌄
Arizona abolished its version of Rule 5.4 in 2021 and licenses alternative business structures, Utah runs a Supreme Court supervised regulatory sandbox, and the District of Columbia allows limited non-lawyer ownership. Most other jurisdictions retain the traditional restriction.
