Law firm marketing California advertising rules
Guide · Compliance
What California bar rulesactually let you say
Rules 7.1 through 7.5 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, in plain language, with the traps that catch marketing people who have never read them.
Read this first. We are a marketing agency, not lawyers, and nothing here is legal advice or a substitute for it. This page describes what the published rules say. Whether any particular thing your firm wants to publish complies is a question for your own ethics counsel, and it is your license rather than ours on the line.
The short version. California's current rules took effect on 1 November 2018. Chapter 7 governs every communication of any type whatsoever about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, which includes your website, your ads, your profiles and your signature block.
Almost everything difficult comes back to a single sentence in Rule 7.1, and the sentence does more work than most people expect.
The chapter in one screen
Five rules,plainly
Communications concerning a lawyer's services
No false or misleading communication. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the communication, considered as a whole, not materially misleading.
Advertising
You may advertise through any written, recorded or electronic means including public media. You generally may not give anything of value to someone for recommending or securing your services, subject to five listed exceptions.
Solicitation of clients
Restricts targeted contact with a specific person, particularly in person, by live telephone or by real-time electronic contact where a significant motive is your own financial gain.
Fields of practice and specialization
You may say your practice specializes in, is limited to, or is concentrated in a field. You may not call yourself a certified specialist unless you actually are one and you name the certifying body.
Firm names and trade names
No name or professional designation that violates Rule 7.1, implies a link to a government agency or charitable legal services organization, or implies a firm relationship that does not exist.
Reserved
Not adopted in California. Chapter 7 is also not the only regulation that applies; the Business and Professions Code contains its own advertising provisions.
Source: State Bar of California, Rules of Professional Conduct, Chapter 7, "Information About Legal Services", rules 7.1 to 7.6 and their official Comments, current rules effective 1 November 2018, read in full. Rule 7.1(b) also allows the Board of Trustees to adopt Standards for communications presumed to violate these rules, operating as presumptions affecting the burden of proof in discipline proceedings.
The part marketing people miss
True is notthe same as allowed
Rule 7.1 prohibits truthful statements that are misleading
This is the sentence that catches people. A statement can be completely accurate and still breach the rule, in two ways the Comments spell out.
It is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to stop the whole communication being materially misleading. It is also misleading if presented so as to create a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person forms a specific conclusion about you for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.
Two consequences that matter commercially. An express guarantee or warranty of a result is treated as false or misleading. And any communication stating or implying "no fee without recovery" is misleading unless it also expressly discloses whether the client will be liable for costs. That second one appears on a very large number of California injury websites without the costs disclosure sitting next to it.
The same Comment deals with case results and testimonials, and it is more permissive than many firms assume while being stricter than most marketers behave. Truthfully reporting what you achieved for a client, or publishing a testimonial, may be misleading if it is presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same result could be obtained for them, without reference to the specific facts and law of each case.
The Comment then supplies the remedy directly: an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language often avoids creating unjustified expectations. That is why competent legal marketing puts qualifying language with results rather than hiding it in a footer, and why the same Comment warns separately about unsubstantiated comparisons with other lawyers' services or fees.
Where the line actually falls
Advertising is fine.Soliciting is the problem.
Not solicitation, per the Comment to Rule 7.3
- Communications directed to the general public
- Billboards and television commercials
- Internet banner advertisements
- A website
- Responses to a request for information
- Communications automatically generated in response to internet searches
Restricted under Rule 7.3
- In-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact for financial gain
- Any solicitation after the person has said they do not want to be solicited
- Anything involving intrusion, coercion, duress or harassment
- Targeted written or electronic contact with someone known to need legal services in a particular matter, unless labeled "Advertisement"
- Respondents in domestic violence restraining order proceedings, until served and proof of service appears on the docket
That left-hand column is the one worth internalising, because it is why ordinary digital marketing is permissible at all. A website and a search ad are communications to the general public rather than targeted approaches to a specific person, and the rule says so explicitly. Solicitation, as the rule defines it, means a targeted communication directed to a specific person.
Rule 7.2 goes further and expressly contemplates paying the people who do this work. Its Comment permits compensating employees, agents and vendors engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, naming publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff and website designers. The same Comment points at the separate rule governing a lawyer's duty to supervise non-lawyers who prepare marketing materials, which is the obligation that sits on your side of an agency relationship and does not transfer to us.
Specific obligations, easy to miss
Five things to checkon your own site
- A responsible name and address on your communications Rule 7.2 requires any communication made under it to include the name and address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. Landing pages built to strip everything except a form routinely fail this. Rule 7.2(c)
- The costs disclosure beside any "no fee unless we win" claim Stating or implying no fee without recovery is misleading unless the communication also expressly discloses whether the client will be liable for costs. Rule 7.1, Comment [3]
- Language claims that match who actually works there You may not state or imply that you provide legal services in a language unless you actually can, or the communication states, in that language, the employment title of the person who speaks it. Directly relevant to the multilingual advertising discussed on the immigration page. Rule 7.1, Comment [5]
- "Specialist" used precisely You may say your practice specializes in or is limited to a field. Calling yourself a certified specialist requires actual certification by the Board of Legal Specialization or another accredited entity, and the certifying organization must be clearly identified. Rule 7.4(a) and (b)
- Your domain name is a professional designation The Comment to Rule 7.5 confirms that "other professional designation" includes logos, letterheads, URLs and signature blocks. A domain implying a government connection, or a firm relationship that does not exist, is squarely within the rule. Rule 7.5 and Comment
We build to these rules by default
Every campaign, landing page and ad we produce for a California firm goes through a compliance review before it runs, and we expect your counsel to have the final word rather than us. Thirty minutes to talk about what you are running now.
The caveat, again, because this is the page where it matters
This is a plain-language summary of published rules for marketing purposes. It is not legal advice, it is not exhaustive, and it does not cover the Business and Professions Code provisions that also govern attorney advertising in California, or the Standards the Board of Trustees may adopt under Rule 7.1(b).
Rules change. This page reflects the rules as published at the time of writing and should be checked against the current text before anyone relies on it. Confirm anything specific with the lawyer who advises your firm on ethics before it goes live. If an agency ever tells you a compliance question is settled because they read a blog post, that is the moment to get your own advice.
Questions firms ask us about this
Straightanswers
Can we publish case results at all?
The rule does not prohibit them. What it addresses is presentation: truthfully reporting an achievement may still be misleading if it leads a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same result could be obtained for them, without reference to the specific facts and law of their own matter.
The Comment names the remedy, which is appropriate qualifying language. How much, and where it sits relative to the claim, is exactly the sort of question to put to your ethics counsel rather than to an agency.
Are Google Ads a form of solicitation?
The Comment to Rule 7.3 addresses this directly and helpfully. A communication is not a solicitation if it is directed to the general public, and it names internet banner advertisements and websites specifically, along with communications automatically generated in response to internet searches.
Solicitation under the rule means a targeted communication directed to a specific person. That is a meaningful distinction: it is the difference between appearing when somebody searches and approaching somebody you know has just been in a collision.
Can we pay a marketing agency at all under Rule 7.2?
Yes, and the Comment to the rule says so in terms, permitting compensation of employees, agents and vendors engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, with website designers named explicitly. The prohibition it sits beside is on paying someone for recommending or securing your services, which is a different thing.
Worth knowing that the same Comment points at your duty to supervise non-lawyers preparing your marketing materials. Hiring us does not move that obligation off your firm, and any agency suggesting otherwise is telling you something untrue about your own rules.
Our site says we specialize in personal injury. Is that a problem?
On the face of the rule, no. Rule 7.4(b) permits a lawyer to communicate that a practice specializes in, is limited to, or is concentrated in a particular field, subject to Rule 7.1's general truthfulness requirement.
The restricted phrase is certified specialist, which requires actual certification by the Board of Legal Specialization or another State Bar accredited entity, with the certifying organization clearly identified. The two get used interchangeably in marketing copy and they are not interchangeable in the rule.
Next step
Thirty minutes.
No pitch deck.
We'll look at what you are running now, flag anything worth putting in front of your ethics counsel, and talk about what to build next. More on the method at law firm marketing.
★★★★★ 4.9 across 312 reviews No obligation · Usually booked 1-2 days out