Compliance

What do bar advertising rules allow on a law firm website?

The short answer

ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communication about a lawyer or their services, and the states adopt variations of it. In practice that constrains how past results are presented, whether testimonials are permitted and what they must carry, how specialization may be described, and what disclaimers are required. The specifics are state law, so your jurisdiction governs.

Rule 7.1's misleading standard includes true statements that create an unjustified expectation.
State rules vary considerably. Multi-state firms have to satisfy the strictest applicable one.
"Specialist" and "expert" are regulated terms in many jurisdictions.
This is general information, not legal advice. Your ethics counsel decides.

The standard is broader than lying

Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications, and the commentary makes clear that a statement can be entirely accurate and still fall foul of it. A truthful description of a favourable verdict may be misleading if it leads a reader to expect a similar outcome without regard to their own facts.

That is the part firms most often miss. The question is not only whether a claim is true, it is what a prospective client would reasonably conclude from it.

Past results

Most jurisdictions permit describing results with appropriate context, and many require a disclaimer stating that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Some are more restrictive.

The practical constraints are consistent: do not present selected outcomes in a way that implies they are typical, do not disclose client information without informed consent, and if you display a settlement figure be prepared to substantiate it. A page of large numbers with no context is the pattern that most reliably attracts attention.

Testimonials and reviews

Rules vary widely here, and this is the area where a national template is most likely to create a problem. Some jurisdictions permit client testimonials with disclaimers, some restrict them, some regulate how you may solicit them, and endorsements that create unjustified expectations are broadly problematic.

Third-party reviews on platforms you do not control sit in a different position from testimonials you publish, though responding to them can create its own confidentiality issue. Confirm your own state's position rather than assuming the common approach applies.

Specialization language

"Specialist", "expert", and "certified" are regulated in many jurisdictions, and several permit specialist claims only where the lawyer holds certification from an approved organization, with that organization named.

Describing practice concentration is generally safer than claiming a title. The distinction between what you do and what you are called sounds pedantic and is exactly where the rules operate.

Why this shapes search work

Compliance is a design constraint on marketing, not a review that happens afterward. The content patterns that perform well in ordinary commercial search, bold outcome claims, aggregated star ratings in markup, and testimonial-heavy pages, are precisely the patterns most constrained in legal.

This is one reason an agency without legal experience can create real exposure while doing what looks like standard practice. Review markup asserting a star rating, for instance, is a search tactic in most industries and a question for your ethics counsel in this one.

Last reviewed 27 August 2026

Follow-on questions

While you are here.

It depends on the jurisdiction and on what the page says. Pages describing results commonly require one. Many firms carry a site-wide disclaimer as well as page-level ones where outcomes appear. Your state's rule is the authority.

Generally you have to satisfy the rules of every jurisdiction where you practice and advertise, which in practice means designing to the strictest applicable standard. Firms trying to satisfy each state selectively tend to create inconsistencies that are worse than a uniform conservative approach.

No. We build with these rules in front of us and we will flag anything that looks like a problem, but we do not practice law and we are not your ethics counsel. Final review belongs with a lawyer responsible for your firm's compliance.

Where this work lives