Attorney Advertising Rules for Reviews and Testimonials

Attorney advertising rules govern how lawyers can use client reviews and testimonials in marketing: communications must be truthful and not create unjustified expectations (ABA Model Rule 7.1), nothing of value can be exchanged for a recommendation (Rule 7.2(b)), and a review request to an existing or former client generally isn't treated as solicitation (Rule 7.3) — though state bars layer their own requirements on top of this baseline. Most states have adopted some version of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but "most" isn't "all," and even states that adopted the framework have amended it in ways that matter for how you collect and display reviews. This guide walks through the baseline rules every firm should know, then the places where states diverge, so you can build a compliant review management for law firms program instead of improvising one review request at a time. None of this is legal advice. It's general information about a regulatory framework that changes by jurisdiction and by year — confirm the current text of your own state's rules and any ethics opinions before adopting a policy firm-wide. The ABA Model Rules framework Four rules do most of the work when it comes to reviews and testimonials. They don't operate independently — a single testimonial on your website can implicate two or three of them at once. Rule 7.1: truthful communications and "unjustified expectations" Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services . The part that trips up review and testimonial use specifically is the "unjustified expectation" standard: a communication can be literally true and still violate the rule if it's likely to create an expectation about results that the lawyer cannot reasonably guarantee. A testimonial that says "She got me $2 million" is accurate if that's what happened, but featured on a firm's homepage without context, it can read as a promise that similar cases produce similar numbers — which is exactly the expectation Rule 7.1 is built to prevent. This is why outcome-specific testimonials are the riskiest category of client praise to publish, and why many firms steer testimonials toward communication, responsiveness, and being listened to rather than dollar figures or verdicts. Rule 7.2(b): nothing of value for a recommendation Rule 7.2(b) generally prohibits giving anything of value in exchange for recommending the lawyer's services . Applied to reviews, that means no discount, fee credit, gift card, or entry into a prize drawing tied to leaving a review — all of it falls inside "anything of value," regardless of how small. The rule carries a narrow exception for nominal gifts of appreciation that weren't promised or offered as a condition of a referral in advance , but that exception is not a workaround for incentivizing reviews — a firm that announces "leave us a review and get a $10 gift card" is squarely inside the conduct the rule prohibits, independent of the nominal-gift carve-out. This sits on top of, not instead of, the FTC's separate ban on incentivized and gated reviews under 16 CFR §465, which applies to every business regardless of license or industry — see our breakdown of the FTC review rule for how that federal layer works. Rule 7.3: solicitation, and why asking a client for a review is usually fine Rule 7.3 restricts solicitation of prospective clients, particularly real-time contact (in person, by phone) aimed at someone who hasn't asked for information and has no existing relationship with the lawyer . A review request sent to a current or former client is a different thing: you're not soliciting a new client, you're asking someone you already represented for feedback about work you already did. Most state bar guidance treats that distinction as meaningful, which is why asking clients for reviews is broadly permitted. That said, a handful of states have added timing or method restrictions on electronic contact with clients that can blur into solicitation territory depending on how a request is built and automated , so this is a rule to check locally rather than assume is settled everywhere. Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c): confidentiality cuts both ways Confidentiality under Rule 1.6 (current clients) and Rule 1.9(c) (former clients) doesn't just constrain how you respond to a negative review — our guide on how lawyers should respond to negative reviews covers that side in depth. It also constrains what you can publish yourself. A testimonial or case-result claim that reveals details of a client's matter needs that client's informed consent before it goes on your website or in an ad, even if the client is the one who originally told you the story. "My client was happy to share this" is not the same as a documented consent to publish specific facts about their case, and the two get conflated more often than firms realize. Testimonials and case-result claims on your own site Featuring client reviews and testimonials on your own website or in ads is generally permitted, but it runs through two filters: Rule 7.1's ban on unjustified expectations, and some states' specific disclaimer requirements for prior-results claims. Prior-results disclaimers. Several states require or strongly encourage a disclaimer along the lines of "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" anywhere a case result or outcome-based testimonial appears . The safer default is to include it anywhere a testimonial references a settlement, verdict, or "won" language, even in states where it isn't strictly mandatory. Curated vs. live testimonials. A hand-picked quote highlighting your best outcome carries more Rule 7.1 risk than a live-pulled review widget showing your actual Google and Avvo star ratings, because the widget reflects the full, unedited record rather than a filtered highlight reel. That doesn't eliminate the risk entirely — a widget that only displays five-star reviews because lower ones were suppressed raises the same gating and misleading-impression issues — but an honest, unfiltered feed is the more defensible pattern. Awards and ratings. Advertising a "Super Lawyers" selection, a Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent rating, or a "Best Lawyers" listing is common practice, but some states require disclosing the selection methodology or the organization issuing the award if it isn't widely recognized as neutral . These are peer-selection or algorithmic ratings, not client reviews, and should be labeled as such rather than blended with star ratings in a way that implies they're the same thing. Specificity without identification. A testimonial can describe what a lawyer did well without naming the client, the opposing party, or enough case detail to identify the matter. That's usually the simplest way to get the marketing value of a testimonial without needing a documented consent for a specific set of facts. Asking for reviews the compliant way The mechanics of a compliant review request are the same whether you're a solo practitioner or a multi-office firm: Ask every client, the same way, when the matter closes. Not after a win, not after a settlement — at the close of the matter, regardless of outcome. Tying a request to a favorable result is review gating, and it's a problem under Google's policies and the FTC rule independent of any bar-specific advertising issue. Our guide on why review gating is a legal risk covers the non-legal-specific side of this in more detail. Never offer anything in exchange. No discounts, no gift cards, no "we'll waive this fee if you leave us five stars." This is both a Rule 7.2(b) problem and an FTC 16 CFR §465 problem, which took effect in October 2024 and applies to incentivized and gated reviews across every industry regardless of professional licensing . Skip Yelp entirely for solicitation. Yelp's terms prohibit asking customers for reviews outright, for every business on the platform, not just law firms. If Yelp matters for your practice area, your only lever there is monitoring and responding to what arrives on its own. Keep the request generic. A short, consistent message — something like "please share your experience working with our firm" — avoids steering the client toward outcome-based language that could itself read as a testimonial about results rather than service. Our review request text message templates cover wording patterns that work across industries; for a law firm, strip anything that references the result of the matter. Where states add their own requirements The ABA Model Rules are a baseline, not a ceiling. States that have adopted the Model Rules framework have each made their own amendments, and a handful diverge meaningfully on advertising specifics. The following is general orientation, not a substitute for reading your own state's current rules : New York. New York's attorney advertising rules (Rule 7.1 and related provisions) have historically included specific retention and disclosure requirements for advertising materials, including testimonials, and New York has at times required the "prior results" disclaimer more explicitly than other states . Florida. The Florida Bar's advertising rules (Rule 4-7.x series) have a reputation for being among the most detailed in the country regarding testimonials, with specific guidance on what a testimonial can and cannot imply about results . Texas. Texas has its own advertising review process for certain categories of lawyer advertising and specific rules on what can appear in testimonials referencing case outcomes . California. California's Rule 7.1 analog focuses on the same "false or misleading" and unjustified-expectation standard as the ABA model, with its own body of ethics opinions interpreting how it applies to online reviews and testimonials specifically . If your firm operates across state lines, the practical answer isn't to memorize every state's rule — it's to build your review request and testimonial-display process around the strictest rule that applies to any office, and have a managing partner or ethics counsel in each jurisdiction sign off on anything that touches case outcomes before it's published. Why this is stricter than advertising rules for most other businesses A restaurant or a plumbing company can run a referral program, offer a loyalty discount tied to a review, or feature a client's exact words about a specific job without much regulatory exposure beyond the general FTC rules that apply to every business. Lawyers operate under an additional layer because the profession is self-regulated through state bars, and that layer exists for reasons specific to legal services: clients hire a lawyer under duress more often than they hire a contractor, the "product" is advice and representation rather than a deliverable you can inspect in advance, and a misleading claim about results can cause someone to make a consequential legal decision — which case to pursue, which lawyer to trust with it — based on marketing rather than merit. That's also why the rules apply regardless of firm size. A solo practitioner handling a handful of cases a year is bound by the same Rule 7.1 and 7.2(b) standards as a hundred-attorney firm running a national ad campaign. The scale of the marketing changes; the underlying obligation doesn't. Multi-office and multi-practice-area firms A firm with offices in more than one state can't apply a single advertising policy and assume it covers every office. The practical approach most multi-state firms land on: build the review-request and testimonial-approval workflow around whichever office's state rules are strictest, then layer in local sign-off for anything genuinely jurisdiction-specific, like a required disclaimer wording that one state mandates and others don't . A managing partner or ethics counsel at each office reviewing new testimonial language before it goes live is a cheap safeguard compared to the cost of an advertising complaint. For firms with distinct practice groups — a personal injury team and an estate planning team under one roof, for instance — it's also worth keeping testimonial review separate by practice area, since an outcome-based claim that's merely tone-deaf in estate planning ("we saved my family six figures") can be the exact kind of unjustified-expectation claim Rule 7.1 targets in personal injury. A short compliance checklist Review requests go out to every client at matter close, regardless of outcome — no exceptions carved out for losses or unfavorable settlements. No discount, gift, fee waiver, or entry into a drawing is offered in exchange for a review, on any platform. No request is sent through Yelp. Any testimonial or case-result claim on your website or in ads has documented client consent for the specific facts disclosed. Outcome-based testimonials carry a "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" disclaimer, even where not strictly required by your state. Awards and peer ratings (Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent) are labeled as selection or peer ratings, not blended with client star ratings. Someone has checked your specific state bar's current advertising rules in the last year, not just the ABA Model Rules. Can I offer a discount for leaving a review? No. Offering a discount, fee credit, or any other thing of value in exchange for a review violates Rule 7.2(b)'s prohibition on giving something of value for a recommendation, and separately violates the FTC's rule against incentivized reviews, which applies regardless of professional licensing. Ask clients for reviews without attaching any incentive. Do I need a disclaimer on client testimonials? If the testimonial references a case result, outcome, or dollar figure, a "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" disclaimer is the safer default everywhere, and required outright in some states . Testimonials that praise communication, responsiveness, or how the client was treated — without referencing an outcome — carry less of this particular risk, though the general Rule 7.1 truthfulness standard still applies. Does asking a past client for a review count as solicitation? Generally no. Rule 7.3's solicitation restrictions are aimed at reaching out to prospective clients who have no existing relationship with you, not at asking someone you already represented for feedback. Most state bar guidance treats a review request to a current or former client as distinct from solicitation, though a few states add timing or method restrictions on electronic client contact worth checking before automating the request . Putting this into a repeatable process matters more than getting any single reply or request perfect — a review request that fires automatically at matter close, a testimonial-approval step before anything outcome-related gets published, and reply drafts that never confirm a representation (covered in our guide on responding to negative reviews as a lawyer) cover most of the risk surface day to day. If your firm also runs a referral arrangement with other attorneys, the same "nothing of value" logic under Rule 7.2 extends there too — see our piece on what attorney referral rules actually allow. Every review from Google, Avvo and Facebook in one inbox → Try Tailwind free. Tailwind is $5 a month per tool or $50 a month for the Full plan covering every tool, with the first month free and no card required to start.