{"meta":{"dataset":"opinions","title":"Legal-marketing ethics opinions, 2015–2026","version":"1.0.0","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.23656749","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23656749","conceptDoi":"10.5281/zenodo.23656748","license":"CC BY 4.0","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","attribution":"Source: Probative, Legal-marketing ethics opinions, 2015–2026, version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23656749, licensed CC BY 4.0.","citation":"Probative. (2026). Legal-marketing ethics opinions, 2015–2026 (Version 1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23656749","disclaimer":"Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of public ethics opinions, kept for marketing planning, and opinions and rules change. Check with your state bar and your own counsel before you run an ad.","notice":"Probative is a marketing firm, not a law firm; not legal advice.","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","url":"https://probativegrowth.com/data/v1/opinions/opinions.json","humanUrl":"https://probativegrowth.com/data/opinions/","statusCodes":{"P":"primary source","S":"secondary source","D":"ABA model default","U":"open question"}},"key":"jurisdiction","records":[{"id":"ny-nysba-1306","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1306","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-10-15","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Unadmitted Law Graduate’s Signature Block and Law Firm Website Listing","topics":["websites","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["website-disclaimers","advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may list not-yet-admitted law graduates on its website and let them sign proper letters, if it clearly says they are not admitted to practice.","text":"A firm may list not-yet-admitted law graduates on its website and let them sign proper letters, if it clearly says they are not admitted to practice.","whatToDo":"Label unadmitted graduates on your website and emails clearly, for example \"Law Clerk\" or \"Not yet admitted to practice.\"","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.3","7.1(a)","7.5","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1306-unadmitted-law-graduates-signature-block-and-law-firm-website-listing/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may list on its website law school graduates who are not yet admitted to practice law","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-10-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1306","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1306-unadmitted-law-graduates-signature-block-and-law-firm-website-listing/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may list on its website law school graduates who are not yet admitted to practice law"}],"note":"Applies Rule 7.1(a) as amended effective 2026-06-01."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1301","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1301","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-09-03","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Virtual law office; advertising a VLO as the lawyer’s office address","topics":["advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A New York lawyer may list a virtual office as the address in ads and online if mail reaches the lawyer there and clients can meet there on notice.","text":"A New York lawyer may list a virtual office as the address in ads and online if mail reaches the lawyer there and clients can meet there on notice.","whatToDo":"If you list a virtual office address, make sure you get mail sent there and can meet clients there on reasonable notice.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a) & (d)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1301-virtual-law-office-advertising-vlo-office-address/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may designate and hold out a virtual law office (“VLO”) as the lawyer’s physical office address, even if the lawyer works primarily from home in","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-09-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1301","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1301-virtual-law-office-advertising-vlo-office-address/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may designate and hold out a virtual law office (“VLO”) as the lawyer’s physical office address, even if the lawyer works primarily from home in"}],"note":"Interprets Rule 7.1 as amended effective 2026-06-01; says the parts of N.Y. State 964 and 1025 (and N.Y. City 2019-2) on \"principal law office\" are no longer relevant."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1298","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1298","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-08-11","dateNote":"opinion date 08/11/2026; posted 2026-08-12","title":"Description of foreign lawyer who has passed bar examination but is not admitted","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A candidate who passed the New York bar exams but is not yet admitted may describe himself as having passed the bar, with the words \"passed not admitted.\"","text":"A candidate who passed the New York bar exams but is not yet admitted may describe himself as having passed the bar, with the words \"passed not admitted.\"","whatToDo":"If you are not yet admitted, say so plainly next to any statement that you passed the bar exam.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.5","8.4(c)","8.5(a) & (b)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1298-description-of-foreign-lawyer-who-has-passed-bar-but-not-admitted/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may identify himself with the notation, “Passed the NY state bar examination (passed not admitted).”","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-08-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1298","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1298-description-of-foreign-lawyer-who-has-passed-bar-but-not-admitted/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may identify himself with the notation, “Passed the NY state bar examination (passed not admitted).”"}],"note":null},{"id":"mo-olec-2026-08","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2026-08","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-08-03","dateNote":null,"title":"use of identification as “retired (inactive) lawyer” socially","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A retired lawyer on inactive status may use a social calling card that says \"Retired (Inactive) Attorney\" because it is not false or misleading.","text":"A retired lawyer on inactive status may use a social calling card that says \"Retired (Inactive) Attorney\" because it is not false or misleading.","whatToDo":"If a retired lawyer lists a law title on cards, label it clearly as retired or inactive.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["6.03","6.05","4-7.1"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2026-08/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"it is the informal advisory opinion of this office that this is not false or misleading under Rule","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-08-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2026-08","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2026-08/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"it is the informal advisory opinion of this office that this is not false or misleading under Rule"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Edge of scope: a Rule 4-7.1 communication question, not marketing for clients."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2026-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2026-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-06-05","dateNote":null,"title":"Use of a Separately Registered Trade Name or DBA by a Law Firm","topics":["trade-names","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names","advertising-general"],"holding":"An Ohio firm may use a registered trade name or DBA in marketing without the entity designation each time, if its full legal name appears in the same medium.","text":"An Ohio firm may use a registered trade name or DBA in marketing without the entity designation each time, if its full legal name appears in the same medium.","whatToDo":"When you market under a DBA, put the firm's full legal entity name somewhere in the same ad, website or letterhead.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Adv.-Op.-2026-02-Board-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"provided that the full legal entity name, including the entity designation, is disclosed within the same medium in which the trade name appears","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-06-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2026-02","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Adv.-Op.-2026-02-Board-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"provided that the full legal entity name, including the entity designation, is disclosed within the same medium in which the trade name appears"}],"note":null},{"id":"ca-coprac-genai-guidance-2026","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC)","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2026-05-14","dateNote":"Updated version approved by the Board of Trustees as of May 14, 2026 (per State Bar ethics opinions page); replaces the November 2023 version.","title":"Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law","topics":["ai-tools","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake"],"holding":"The guidance lists autonomous client intake as an example of agentic AI and says lawyers must not let agentic systems make legal decisions or give legal advice without lawyer review.","text":"The guidance lists autonomous client intake as an example of agentic AI and says lawyers must not let agentic systems make legal decisions or give legal advice without lawyer review.","whatToDo":"If you use an AI agent for intake, keep a lawyer reviewing its work and do not let it give legal advice to prospects.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Replaces the 2023 Practical Guidance per its own executive summary.","supersedes":["2023 COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 2023)"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","5.1","5.3"],"url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers must not deploy agentic systems in a manner that allows the system to make substantive legal determinations, communicate legal advice","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-05-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), None","url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers must not deploy agentic systems in a manner that allows the system to make substantive legal determinations, communicate legal advice"}],"note":"Not a numbered formal opinion. Marketing/intake discussion is brief (one example of agentic intake); no discussion of advertising rules 7.1-7.3."},{"id":"pa-pba-2026-100","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility","number":"Formal Opinion 2026-100","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-04","dateNote":null,"title":"Use of the Designation \"Of Counsel\"","topics":["trade-names","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names","advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may list a lawyer as 'of counsel' only if there is a real, close and continuing relationship, and letterhead and marketing must describe that relationship accurately.","text":"A firm may list a lawyer as 'of counsel' only if there is a real, close and continuing relationship, and letterhead and marketing must describe that relationship accurately.","whatToDo":"Use 'of counsel' on your website and letterhead only for lawyers with a genuine ongoing tie to the firm, and drop titles like 'Judge' for retired judges.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the PBA formal-opinion database","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","1.5(e)","1.10","8.4(e)"],"url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=14d28af6-42a9-4ec1-9d33-47736904d937","sourceKind":"official","quote":"All communications, including letterhead and marketing materials, must accurately describe the relationship and must not be false or misleading under Rule 7.1.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 2026-100","url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=14d28af6-42a9-4ec1-9d33-47736904d937","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"All communications, including letterhead and marketing materials, must accurately describe the relationship and must not be false or misleading under Rule 7.1."}],"note":"Month only, from the PBA database listing (April 2026)."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1295","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1295","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-03-12","dateNote":"opinion date 03/12/2026; posted 2026-03-12","title":"Conflicts of interest; advertising; trust account; opening a solo law practice","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer working at a New York firm while running a New Jersey firm must follow New York ad and solicitation rules for ads aimed at New York.","text":"A lawyer working at a New York firm while running a New Jersey firm must follow New York ad and solicitation rules for ads aimed at New York.","whatToDo":"If you advertise into New York, follow New York ad rules, show your practice limits, and avoid implying ties to another firm you work for.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7","1.9","1.10","1.15","7.1","7.3","8.5"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1295-conflicts-of-interest-advertising-trust-account-opening-a-solo-law-practice/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"To the extent the inquirer intends to advertise the New Jersey law firm in New York, the New York Rules will apply to the inquirer’s","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-03-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1295","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1295-conflicts-of-interest-advertising-trust-account-opening-a-solo-law-practice/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"To the extent the inquirer intends to advertise the New Jersey law firm in New York, the New York Rules will apply to the inquirer’s"}],"note":"Advertising is one of several topics in the opinion (also conflicts and trust accounts)."},{"id":"ri-eap-2026-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2026-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-03-12","dateNote":null,"title":"[Trade name for a digital law firm: \"Contract House LLP\"]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A trade name like 'Contract House LLP' that describes the practice area and firm form is allowed, because it is not comparative, does not suggest results and is not misleading.","text":"A trade name like 'Contract House LLP' that describes the practice area and firm form is allowed, because it is not comparative, does not suggest results and is not misleading.","whatToDo":"Pick a firm or brand name that describes what you do; avoid names like 'Best Tax Lawyers' or 'Tax Fixers' that compare or promise results.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5","7.1"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2026-02.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"It also describes the firm's practice area—contract law—as well as its organizational structure—limited liability partnership.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-03-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2026-02","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2026-02.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"It also describes the firm's practice area—contract law—as well as its organizational structure—limited liability partnership."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1294","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1294","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-03-11","dateNote":"opinion date 03/11/2026; posted 2026-03-12","title":"Solicitation; Advertisement; Lead Generators","topics":["lead-generators","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","solicitation"],"holding":"Paying a platform to contact users who agreed to share their details is a permitted lead payment if it recommends no lawyer, uses neutral disclosed criteria, and fees ignore retention.","text":"Paying a platform to contact users who agreed to share their details is a permitted lead payment if it recommends no lawyer, uses neutral disclosed criteria, and fees ignore retention.","whatToDo":"Before paying a lead platform, confirm it does not recommend you, picks lawyers by neutral disclosed criteria, and charges the same whether or not you are hired.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a) & (j)","1.6","1.9","1.18","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1294-solicitation-advertisement-lead-generators/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The lawyer’s payment for the opportunity to make the contact is not a prohibited payment to obtain employment, but rather a permissible payment to a","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-03-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1294","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1294-solicitation-advertisement-lead-generators/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The lawyer’s payment for the opportunity to make the contact is not a prohibited payment to obtain employment, but rather a permissible payment to a"}],"note":"Page heading reads \"Solicitation; Advertisement; Lead Generators\" but the Topic line on the page reads \"Conflict analysis for per diem attorney\" (apparent posting error on the NYSBA page). Builds on N.Y. State 1131 (2017)."},{"id":"or-osb-2026-208","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2026-208","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026-02","dateNote":"Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2026.","title":"Chatbots and AI Agent Communications","topics":["ai-tools","websites","solicitation","chatbots","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake","website-disclaimers","solicitation"],"holding":"Oregon lawyers may use chatbots for marketing and intake if the tool does not mislead or give legal advice, protects prospects' information, and is supervised.","text":"Oregon lawyers may use chatbots for marketing and intake if the tool does not mislead or give legal advice, protects prospects' information, and is supervised.","whatToDo":"Program your website chatbot so it never overstates your experience or results or gives legal advice, review its chats, and log prospects in your conflict system.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on OSB opinions table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","1.18","5.3","7.1","7.3(a)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers must be careful that chatbots do not mislead clients or prospective clients about their expertise, experience, or past results.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers must be careful that chatbots do not mislead clients or prospective clients about their expertise, experience, or past results."}],"note":null},{"id":"al-asb-2026-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"AL","jurisdictionKey":"alabama","jurisdictionName":"Alabama","fips":"01","body":"Alabama State Bar, Office of General Counsel","number":"2026-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2026","dateNote":"no date printed on the document; listed as Formal Opinion 2026-01 and the PDF is stored under a 2026/05 upload path","title":"ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules","topics":["ai-tools","chatbots"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake"],"holding":"The bar warns that a website chatbot giving specific legal advice without saying it is not a lawyer, and without lawyer review, may be unauthorized practice of law.","text":"The bar warns that a website chatbot giving specific legal advice without saying it is not a lawyer, and without lawyer review, may be unauthorized practice of law.","whatToDo":"If your website uses a chatbot, make it say it is not a lawyer, keep it to general information, and have a lawyer review what it tells people.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.5","5.3","8.4"],"url":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"If the chatbot provides specific legal advice without flagging that it is not an attorney and without attorney review of its responses, this may constitute","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2026","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Alabama State Bar, Office of General Counsel, 2026-01","url":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"If the chatbot provides specific legal advice without flagging that it is not an attorney and without attorney review of its responses, this may constitute"}],"note":"General AI guidance; included only for its website-chatbot/intake example (section X, UPL). Listed by the bar among its Formal Opinions but written as best-practices guidance."},{"id":"nj-acpe-735-supp","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"ACPE Opinion 735 Supplement","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-12-08","dateNote":"Document Date and Publish Date both Dec. 8, 2025 on the notice page","title":"Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE) Opinion 735 Supplement - Lawyer's Use of Internet Search Engine Keyword Advertising","topics":["competitor-keywords","websites"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"After the 2025 Supreme Court ruling, lawyers may buy competitors' names as keywords, but landing pages must show a set disclaimer saying the visitor came through a paid ad.","text":"After the 2025 Supreme Court ruling, lawyers may buy competitors' names as keywords, but landing pages must show a set disclaimer saying the visitor came through a paid ad.","whatToDo":"If you bid on other lawyers' names, put the Court's exact paid-ad disclaimer prominently on every landing page those ads point to.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","8.4(c)","8.4(d)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/advisory-committee-professional-ethics-acpe-opinion-735-supplement-lawyers-use-of-internet","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The disclaimer must be prominently displayed on the landing page or pages of the lawyer or law firm website where the sponsored search result is","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-12-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ACPE Opinion 735 Supplement","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/advisory-committee-professional-ethics-acpe-opinion-735-supplement-lawyers-use-of-internet","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The disclaimer must be prominently displayed on the landing page or pages of the lawyer or law firm website where the sponsored search result is"}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-caa-49","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising","number":"CAA Opinion 49","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-09-30","dateNote":"issued 2025-09-30; PDF filed under notices/2025/09 as n251021b","title":"Testimonials (Superseding Opinion 15 and 33)","topics":["testimonials","past-results"],"researchTopics":["testimonials-endorsements","past-results"],"holding":"Testimonials are allowed if the client is identified, actors are labeled as a dramatization, results carry a 'Results may vary' line, and nothing is paid or called 'best'.","text":"Testimonials are allowed if the client is identified, actors are labeled as a dramatization, results carry a 'Results may vary' line, and nothing is paid or called 'best'.","whatToDo":"Name each reviewer, add the required 'Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances' line near any results claim, and strip out words like 'best' or 'top'.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":["CAA Opinion 15","CAA Opinion 33"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)(1)","7.1(a)(2)","7.1(a)(3)","7.3(d)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2025/09/n251021b.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"where a law firm uses an actor to portray an actual and identifiable endorsing client disclosure that the depiction is a dramatization is required","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-09-30","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising, CAA Opinion 49","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2025/09/n251021b.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"where a law firm uses an actor to portray an actual and identifiable endorsing client disclosure that the depiction is a dramatization is required"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1286","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1286","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-09-29","dateNote":"opinion date 09/29/2025; posted 2025-10-01","title":"Requesting former clients to write Google reviews","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may ask a former client for a Google review and give a small gift, but may not write the review or tie the gift to its content.","text":"A lawyer may ask a former client for a Google review and give a small gift, but may not write the review or tie the gift to its content.","whatToDo":"Ask happy past clients for reviews, offer at most a small gift for any review, and never write it for them or reward only good ones.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","1.6","1.9","7.1","7.3","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1286-requesting-former-clients-to-write-google-reviews/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may ask a former client to write a Google review of the lawyer’s services, and may offer the former client a nominal gift","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-09-29","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1286","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1286-requesting-former-clients-to-write-google-reviews/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may ask a former client to write a Google review of the lawyer’s services, and may offer the former client a nominal gift"}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-25-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"25-02","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-08-13","dateNote":"issued date; posted PDF file is dated 2025-09-05 and adds caution language","title":"[Referral fees after the 2020 rule amendments]","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Utah lawyers may pay referral fees to lawyers and non-lawyers, including clients, if other rules are met, but must watch Utah's criminal anti-kickback law for injury claims.","text":"Utah lawyers may pay referral fees to lawyers and non-lawyers, including clients, if other rules are met, but must watch Utah's criminal anti-kickback law for injury claims.","whatToDo":"Before paying anyone for a referral in Utah, check the current rules (a referral-fee ban was proposed in 2025) and the kickback statute, and tell clients about the arrangement.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"Bar's copy carries a caution that on Sept. 2, 2025 a proposed new Rule 5.8 that would prohibit referral fees was published for comment; whether it was adopted was not verified","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 1.4","Rule 1.6","Rule 5.4(c)","Rule 8.4","former Rule 7.2(f)","Utah Code Ann. 76-17-201","Utah Code Ann. 76-17-202"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2025-09-05-FINAL-Referral-Fees-Op.-No.-25-02-for-publication-WITH-CAUTION-LANGUAGE.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers may pay referral fees to both lawyers and non-lawyers, including clients or former clients, provided that such arrangements comply with the general requirements","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-08-13","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 25-02","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2025-09-05-FINAL-Referral-Fees-Op.-No.-25-02-for-publication-WITH-CAUTION-LANGUAGE.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers may pay referral fees to both lawyers and non-lawyers, including clients or former clients, provided that such arrangements comply with the general requirements"}],"note":"Also answers whether Op. 22-02 should be modified for the kickback statute."},{"id":"mo-olec-2025-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2025-05","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-07-25","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyers may only use client lead generation services if the services are “qualified services” registered with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel","topics":["lead-generators","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay an online lead company only if it is a qualified lawyer referral service registered with OCDC under Rule 4-9.1, whatever it calls its fee.","text":"A lawyer may pay an online lead company only if it is a qualified lawyer referral service registered with OCDC under Rule 4-9.1, whatever it calls its fee.","whatToDo":"Before paying any lead generator in Missouri, confirm with OCDC that it is a registered qualified service under Rule 4-9.1.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.2(c)","4-9.1"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2025-05/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Any lawyer referral service used by a lawyer must be a “qualified service” in that it must conform to the requirements of Rule","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-07-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2025-05","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2025-05/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Any lawyer referral service used by a lawyer must be a “qualified service” in that it must conform to the requirements of Rule"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Cites a 2024 Missouri Supreme Court discipline decision, 701 S.W.3d 623 (lawyer names are left out of this dataset). Page renders rule numbers as '4 dash –9.1'; quote taken from a span that checkquote matched."},{"id":"nj-court-in-re-735","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","number":"In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, A-61/62-19, 260 N.J. 482 (2025)","opinionType":"court","bindingWeight":"court","issued":"2025-05-22","dateNote":"decided 2025-05-22; argued 2024-09-24","title":"In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics","topics":["competitor-keywords","websites"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"Buying a competitor lawyer's name as a keyword is not by itself unethical, but the landing page reached from the ad must carry a clear disclaimer.","text":"Buying a competitor lawyer's name as a keyword is not by itself unethical, but the landing page reached from the ad must carry a clear disclaimer.","whatToDo":"Keep competitor-name keyword campaigns only if every landing page carries the required paid-ad disclaimer.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"binding Supreme Court decision; implemented by ACPE 735 Supplement (2025-12-08)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","8.4(c)","8.4(d)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_61_62_19.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the Court requires that attorneys employing this strategy include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on the landing page of their website when a user clicks","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-05-22","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, A-61/62-19, 260 N.J. 482 (2025)","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_61_62_19.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the Court requires that attorneys employing this strategy include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on the landing page of their website when a user clicks"}],"note":"Quote is from the clerk's syllabus at the top of the official opinion PDF; the holding matches the Court's opinion as described in the ACPE 735 Supplement."},{"id":"mo-olec-2025-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2025-03","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-05-02","dateNote":null,"title":"SSM messages, or similar text messages, prohibited for solicitation pursuant to Rule 4-7.3","topics":["texting","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["texting","solicitation"],"holding":"Sending SMS or similar text messages to solicit people known to need legal help counts as real-time electronic solicitation and is not allowed in Missouri.","text":"Sending SMS or similar text messages to solicit people known to need legal help counts as real-time electronic solicitation and is not allowed in Missouri.","whatToDo":"Do not text prospective clients you do not already know to solicit their cases; use regular U.S. mail solicitations that comply with Rule 4-7.3.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.3(a)","4-7.3(b)"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2025-03/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"SSM messaging, or similar text messaging, is not permitted by the Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-05-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2025-03","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2025-03/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"SSM messaging, or similar text messaging, is not permitted by the Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site."},{"id":"ri-eap-2025-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2025-3","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-03-13","dateNote":null,"title":"[Including non-lawyer business partner ads in a law firm's marketing publication]","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may run nonlawyer partners' ads in its own marketing publication if they are clearly set apart and imply no overlap or promised results.","text":"A firm may run nonlawyer partners' ads in its own marketing publication if they are clearly set apart and imply no overlap or promised results.","whatToDo":"Keep partner ads visibly separate from your firm's content and review each new partner ad before publishing.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2(a)","7.3(b)(3)","7.4(a)","8.4(e)"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2025-03.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the Panel concludes that the inclusion of business partner organization advertisements in the Publication does not run afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-03-13","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2025-3","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2025-03.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the Panel concludes that the inclusion of business partner organization advertisements in the Publication does not run afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1279","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1279","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-02-18","dateNote":"opinion date 02/18/2025; posted 2025-02-20","title":"Prohibited referral fees","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Promising a non-lawyer paid \"administrative\" work for each case they refer is still paying for referrals, which the rules forbid.","text":"Promising a non-lawyer paid \"administrative\" work for each case they refer is still paying for referrals, which the rules forbid.","whatToDo":"Do not reward people who send you cases with paid side work or anything else of value.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1279-prohibited-referral-fees/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"constitutes a thing of “value” as compensation for or as a reward for a referral and thus violates Rule 7.2(a)","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-02-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1279","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1279-prohibited-referral-fees/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"constitutes a thing of “value” as compensation for or as a reward for a referral and thus violates Rule 7.2(a)"}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-court-in-re-745","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","number":"In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23","opinionType":"court","bindingWeight":"court","issued":"2025-02-18","dateNote":"decided 2025-02-18; argued 2024-10-22","title":"In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Certified New Jersey attorneys may pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed in New Jersey; the Court vacated ACPE Opinion 745.","text":"Certified New Jersey attorneys may pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed in New Jersey; the Court vacated ACPE Opinion 745.","whatToDo":"If you are a certified attorney, you may pay a referral fee to an out-of-state lawyer, out of and not above your reasonable fee.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"binding Supreme Court decision","supersedes":["nj-acpe-745"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["R. 1:39-6(d)","1.5(e)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_44_23.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The Court Rules allow certified attorneys to pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed here","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-02-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_44_23.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The Court Rules allow certified attorneys to pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed here"}],"note":"Quote is from the clerk's syllabus at the top of the official opinion PDF."},{"id":"tx-pec-706","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"706","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-02","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Paying a nonlawyer support-services vendor a percentage of firm revenue]","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A Texas lawyer may not pay a nonlawyer-owned services company a percentage of firm revenue, because that shares legal fees.","text":"A Texas lawyer may not pay a nonlawyer-owned services company a percentage of firm revenue, because that shares legal fees.","whatToDo":"Pay vendors flat or usage-based fees, never a percentage of your firm's revenue.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.04(a)","5.04(b)","1.06","1.08"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-706/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not agree to pay a nonlawyer-owned vendor based on a percentage of the revenues of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 706","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-706/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not agree to pay a nonlawyer-owned vendor based on a percentage of the revenues of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection. Vendor in the facts provides case-management and back-office services, not marketing; included because it governs percentage-based vendor pricing."},{"id":"il-isba-2502","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"25-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025-02","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Participation in 3rd-party for-profit client referral service that offers a money-back guarantee, fails to disclose the use of non-attorney actors in its advertising, and requires the lawyer to communicate with the client on the service’s online platform","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","testimonials","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees","testimonials-endorsements"],"holding":"A lawyer may not take clients from a for-profit referral service that splits a fixed fee, offers money-back guarantees, hides actors in ads, or controls lawyer-client messages.","text":"A lawyer may not take clients from a for-profit referral service that splits a fixed fee, offers money-back guarantees, hides actors in ads, or controls lawyer-client messages.","whatToDo":"Do not join referral platforms that share client fees, promise refunds if you lose, use undisclosed actors, or host your client communications.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.5","1.6","1.7","1.16","5.4","7.1","7.2","8.4"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2502","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The client referral service must disclose in its advertising material whether non-attorney actors are being used","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 25-02","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2502","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The client referral service must disclose in its advertising material whether non-attorney actors are being used"}],"note":null},{"id":"wa-wsba-202505","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WA","jurisdictionKey":"washington","jurisdictionName":"Washington","fips":"53","body":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"202505","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025","dateNote":"Year Issued: 2025 (no month shown).","title":"Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice","topics":["ai-tools","websites","chatbots","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"Lawyers may use AI tools with competence, confidentiality and supervision; firms using intake chatbots should consider disclaimers that no lawyer-client relationship exists yet and explain whether prospects' information is confidential.","text":"Lawyers may use AI tools with competence, confidentiality and supervision; firms using intake chatbots should consider disclaimers that no lawyer-client relationship exists yet and explain whether prospects' information is confidential.","whatToDo":"If a chatbot gathers intake details, add a clear disclaimer about the attorney-client relationship and confidentiality.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed in WSBA advisory opinions database; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.3","1.4","1.5","1.6","3.3","5.1","5.3"],"url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1713","sourceKind":"official","quote":"lawyers using “chat bots” to assist with client intake by gathering preliminary information, should consider the use of appropriate disclaimers of an attorney-client relationship","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 202505","url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1713","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"lawyers using “chat bots” to assist with client intake by gathering preliminary information, should consider the use of appropriate disclaimers of an attorney-client relationship"}],"note":null},{"id":"wa-wsba-202502","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WA","jurisdictionKey":"washington","jurisdictionName":"Washington","fips":"53","body":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"202502","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2025","dateNote":"Year Issued: 2025 (no month shown).","title":"Use of Non-Practicing Lawyer's Name in Firm Name by Purchaser of a Law Practice","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer who buys an entire practice may not keep the seller's name in the firm name if the seller is not associated with the buyer's firm.","text":"A lawyer who buys an entire practice may not keep the seller's name in the firm name if the seller is not associated with the buyer's firm.","whatToDo":"When you buy a practice, drop the seller's name from your firm name unless the seller stays associated with your firm.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed in WSBA advisory opinions database; no notice of change found on the bar site. Notes RPC 7.5 was reserved in 2021 and firm-name guidance moved to RPC 7.1 cmt. [10].","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.17","7.1"],"url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1710","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may not include the name of the selling lawyer in the firm name if the selling lawyer is not associated with the purchasing lawyer’s firm","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2025","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 202502","url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1710","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may not include the name of the selling lawyer in the firm name if the selling lawyer is not associated with the purchasing lawyer’s firm"}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2024-204","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2024-204","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-11","dateNote":"Approved by the Board of Governors, November 2024 (published in 2025 Supplement).","title":"Use of Client Information for Lawyer's Benefit","topics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"researchTopics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"holding":"A lawyer pitching a client or giving a talk may describe work for a current client only with informed consent, even if the case was publicly reported.","text":"A lawyer pitching a client or giving a talk may describe work for a current client only with informed consent, even if the case was publicly reported.","whatToDo":"Get the client's informed consent before naming them or describing their matter in a pitch or other marketing.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on OSB opinions table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(b)","1.0(f)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2024-204.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"in any form of personal marketing (or otherwise) should get informed consent from the client.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2024-204","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2024-204.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"in any form of personal marketing (or otherwise) should get informed consent from the client."}],"note":null},{"id":"mi-sbm-ri-391","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MI","jurisdictionKey":"michigan","jurisdictionName":"Michigan","fips":"26","body":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"RI-391","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-09-06","dateNote":null,"title":"[Lawyer-hosted parties and social events; advertising and solicitation]","topics":["solicitation","fee-sharing","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","referral-marketing-fees","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may host parties and social events for marketing but must follow the advertising and solicitation rules, including not giving value for recommendations.","text":"A lawyer may host parties and social events for marketing but must follow the advertising and solicitation rules, including not giving value for recommendations.","whatToDo":"Use events for marketing, but do not trade hospitality for referrals or invite people targeted from lists like arrest records.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2","7.3","5.3","5.4(a)","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-391","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may host parties or other social events, but when doing so must comply with rules governing lawyer advertising and solicitation.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-09-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, RI-391","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-391","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may host parties or other social events, but when doing so must comply with rules governing lawyer advertising and solicitation."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1271","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1271","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-08-20","dateNote":"opinion date 08/20/2024; posted 2024-08-22","title":"Sharing of Legal Fees with Non-Lawyer; Impermissible Referral Fees; Non-Refundable Retainer","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not use a non-lawyer bidding site that takes a percentage of the fee and claims to vet lawyers; that shares fees and pays for a recommendation.","text":"A lawyer may not use a non-lawyer bidding site that takes a percentage of the fee and claims to vet lawyers; that shares fees and pays for a recommendation.","whatToDo":"Avoid client-matching sites that take a cut of your fee or claim to vet or rate the lawyers they send.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.2","1.5(d)(4)","5.4(a)","5.8","7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1271-sharing-of-legal-fees-with-non-lawyer/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"if she pays a percentage of a legal fee to an online service owned by non-lawyers, on which attorneys can bid on potential clients’ legal","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-08-20","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1271","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1271-sharing-of-legal-fees-with-non-lawyer/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"if she pays a percentage of a legal fee to an online service owned by non-lawyers, on which attorneys can bid on potential clients’ legal"}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-702","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"702","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-08","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Paid educational presentations marketed by a private company; later contact by viewers]","topics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may be paid for general legal education videos a company sells; the talk is not solicitation, so the lawyer may represent viewers who later call.","text":"A lawyer may be paid for general legal education videos a company sells; the talk is not solicitation, so the lawyer may represent viewers who later call.","whatToDo":"Give educational talks with a not-legal-advice warning, and let viewers contact you rather than pitching them during the talk.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.04(a)","5.05(b)","7.01(b)","7.03"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-702/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer who merely provides an educational presentation on general legal topics, unaccompanied by any request for professional employment, does not thereby make a \"solicitation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 702","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-702/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer who merely provides an educational presentation on general legal topics, unaccompanied by any request for professional employment, does not thereby make a \"solicitation"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection. Reconsiders and clarifies a sentence in Opinion 489 (Dec. 1992) as overbroad (answering audience questions about specific problems)."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2023-feo-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2023 FEO 3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-07-19","dateNote":"adopted date; opinion is numbered 2023","title":"Installation of Third Party’s Self-Service Kiosk in Lawyer’s Office and Inclusion of Lawyer in Third Party’s Advertising Efforts","topics":["advertising-general","fee-sharing","specialist-claims"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","referral-marketing-fees","specialist-claims"],"holding":"A lawyer may host a business's kiosk in the office but may not take rent or referral fees, and may appear in its ads if they meet Rule 7.4.","text":"A lawyer may host a business's kiosk in the office but may not take rent or referral fees, and may appear in its ads if they meet Rule 7.4.","whatToDo":"Do not take payments or referral fees from vendors in your office, and check any vendor ad that names you for specialty claims.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7(a)(2)","7.4"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2023-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may be included in the business’s advertising efforts upon compliance with Rule 7.4","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-07-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2023 FEO 3","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2023-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may be included in the business’s advertising efforts upon compliance with Rule 7.4"}],"note":"Topic \"specialist-claims\" assigned because the advertising part turns on Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization); read in summary form for that part."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1267","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1267","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-06-18","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Paying for a recommendation or referral","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A paid website that says its lawyers are vetted and highly qualified recommends them, so paying to be listed is paying for a recommendation, which is not allowed.","text":"A paid website that says its lawyers are vetted and highly qualified recommends them, so paying to be listed is paying for a recommendation, which is not allowed.","whatToDo":"Do not pay to join a directory or matching site that tells people its lawyers are vetted or the best.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","7.1(a), (f), & (h)","7.2(a)","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1267-paying-for-a-recommendation-or-referral/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the lawyers’ payment to the business providing this service constitutes an improper payment for a recommendation in violation of Rule 7.2(a)","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-06-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1267","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1267-paying-for-a-recommendation-or-referral/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the lawyers’ payment to the business providing this service constitutes an improper payment for a recommendation in violation of Rule 7.2(a)"}],"note":null},{"id":"wv-ldb-leo-2024-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WV","jurisdictionKey":"west-virginia","jurisdictionName":"West Virginia","fips":"54","body":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board","number":"L.E.O. 2024-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-06-14","dateNote":"approved and entered June 14, 2024","title":"Artificial Intelligence","topics":["ai-tools","chatbots","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake"],"holding":"Lawyers may use AI but must follow advertising rules, and a lawyer is responsible if an AI intake chatbot gives prospective clients misleading information.","text":"Lawyers may use AI but must follow advertising rules, and a lawyer is responsible if an AI intake chatbot gives prospective clients misleading information.","whatToDo":"Supervise any AI intake chatbot closely, and make sure it gives no misleading information to prospective clients.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.18","4.2","4.3","5.3"],"url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":null,"status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-06-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, L.E.O. 2024-01","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":null}],"note":"General AI opinion included because its text (page 3 and footnote 3) tells lawyers to comply with advertising regulations and warns about chatbots used for intake. The official copy on the ODC website is an image-only scan with no text layer, so checkquote.py cannot verify any quote; quote is null. Text was read visually from the page images of the official PDF."},{"id":"il-isba-2402","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"24-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-05","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Use of the terms “senior counsel,” “special counsel,” and “counsel” to describe lawyers with whom a firm has a close, regular, and personal relationship","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may call lawyers \"senior counsel,\" \"special counsel\" or \"counsel\" if they have a close, regular, personal relationship with the firm.","text":"A firm may call lawyers \"senior counsel,\" \"special counsel\" or \"counsel\" if they have a close, regular, personal relationship with the firm.","whatToDo":"Use counsel titles only for lawyers with a real ongoing tie to the firm, and treat shared counsel as linking the firms for conflicts.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2402","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may use the terms “senior counsel,” “special counsel,” or “counsel,” as well as “of counsel,” to designate lawyers","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 24-02","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2402","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may use the terms “senior counsel,” “special counsel,” or “counsel,” as well as “of counsel,” to designate lawyers"}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-acpe-745","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"ACPE Opinion 745","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-03-07","dateNote":"issued 2024-03-07; published 2024-03-12","title":"Referral Fees","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Certified trial attorneys generally could not pay referral fees to out-of-state lawyers or to lawyers conflicted out of a case.","text":"Certified trial attorneys generally could not pay referral fees to out-of-state lawyers or to lawyers conflicted out of a case.","whatToDo":"Do not rely on this opinion; the Supreme Court vacated it in 2025.","opinionStatus":"withdrawn","statusNote":"vacated by In re Opinion No. 745 (N.J. Feb. 18, 2025)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":["nj-court-in-re-745"],"rules":["1.5(e)","7.2(c)","R. 1:39-6(d)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/03/ACPEOpinion745Referral%20Fees.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Certified lawyers also may not pay referral fees to New Jersey lawyers who cannot accept a case, or must withdraw from a case, due to","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-03-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ACPE Opinion 745","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/03/ACPEOpinion745Referral%20Fees.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Certified lawyers also may not pay referral fees to New Jersey lawyers who cannot accept a case, or must withdraw from a case, due to"}],"note":"Lawyer-to-lawyer referral fees, not marketing vendors."},{"id":"ri-eap-2024-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2024-01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-02-08","dateNote":null,"title":"[Lawyer organizing and moderating a community panel]","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may organize and moderate a civic panel attended by possible clients because the lawyer is not acting for pay and will not market the firm or solicit attendees.","text":"A lawyer may organize and moderate a civic panel attended by possible clients because the lawyer is not acting for pay and will not market the firm or solicit attendees.","whatToDo":"At community events you host, do not pitch your firm or solicit attendees in person.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3(a)"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2024-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"direct contact between attorneys and potential clients otherwise prohibited under Rule 7.3(a) may be permissible in the absence of affirmatively solicitous conduct","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-02-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2024-01","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP-2024-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"direct contact between attorneys and potential clients otherwise prohibited under Rule 7.3(a) may be permissible in the absence of affirmatively solicitous conduct"}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-court-ai-guidelines-2024","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts)","number":null,"opinionType":"court","bindingWeight":"court","issued":"2024-01-24","dateNote":"Document Date Jan. 24, 2024; published Jan. 25, 2024","title":"Legal Practice: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers","topics":["ai-tools"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake"],"holding":"The Court's preliminary AI guidelines say the existing ethics rules still apply and flag that AI will affect advertising (RPC 7.2), but leave specific advertising guidance for later.","text":"The Court's preliminary AI guidelines say the existing ethics rules still apply and flag that AI will affect advertising (RPC 7.2), but leave specific advertising guidance for later.","whatToDo":"Treat AI-made marketing content like any other ad under the existing rules; no NJ AI-specific ad rule exists yet.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"preliminary guidelines, effective immediately; no notice of change found","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2","1.5"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"For instance, the use of AI likely will affect lawyer billing practices and advertising. See, e.g., RPC 1.5 (Fees); RPC 7.2 (Advertising).","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-01-24","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts), None","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"For instance, the use of AI likely will affect lawyer billing practices and advertising. See, e.g., RPC 1.5 (Fees); RPC 7.2 (Advertising)."}],"note":"Only a passing mention of advertising; included because the text names advertising."},{"id":"mo-olec-2024-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2024-01","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-01-23","dateNote":null,"title":"Law firm name and retirement of lawyer","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may not keep using the name of a retired lawyer who is no longer with the firm unless the name has become a well-known trade name.","text":"A firm may not keep using the name of a retired lawyer who is no longer with the firm unless the name has become a well-known trade name.","whatToDo":"Remove a departed, retired lawyer's name from your firm name unless it is a recognized trade name, and keep the name truthful.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.5","4-7.1"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-01/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may not be used to identify that law firm unless the name has become so well known that it is considered to be a trade","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-01-23","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2024-01","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-01/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may not be used to identify that law firm unless the name has become so well known that it is considered to be a trade"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site."},{"id":"fl-flbar-24-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics)","number":"24-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-01-19","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyers’ use of generative artificial intelligence","topics":["ai-tools","advertising-general","chatbots","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["ai-chatbots-intake","advertising-general"],"holding":"Lawyers may use generative AI, but a chatbot that talks to prospective clients must follow the advertising rules and say it is an AI program.","text":"Lawyers may use generative AI, but a chatbot that talks to prospective clients must follow the advertising rules and say it is an AI program.","whatToDo":"Label any website or intake chatbot as AI, keep it from making misleading claims, and do not call your AI superior unless you can prove it.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-1.6","4-1.18","4-7.13"],"url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"careful when using generative AI chatbot for advertising and intake purposes as the lawyer will be ultimately responsible","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-01-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1","url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"careful when using generative AI chatbot for advertising and intake purposes as the lawyer will be ultimately responsible"}],"note":"General AI opinion included because it has a \"Lawyer Advertising\" section on chatbots used for advertising and intake. Issuing body taken from the Bar listing context; the PDF header reads \"Florida Bar Ethics Opinion\"."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2023-feo-4","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2023 FEO 4","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-01-19","dateNote":"adopted date; opinion is numbered 2023","title":"Use of a Lawyer’s Trade Name for Keyword Advertisements in an Internet Search Engine","topics":["competitor-keywords","trade-names"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords","domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer may not bid on another firm's unique trade name as a keyword, but may bid on a generic phrase like 'Durham family lawyers'.","text":"A lawyer may not bid on another firm's unique trade name as a keyword, but may bid on a generic phrase like 'Durham family lawyers'.","whatToDo":"Do not bid on competitors’ names or unique firm names; generic location-and-practice phrases are fine.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["8.4(c)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2023-formal-ethics-opinion-4/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the intentional selection of another lawyer’s unique firm trade name in a keyword advertisement campaign is prohibited","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-01-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2023 FEO 4","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2023-formal-ethics-opinion-4/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the intentional selection of another lawyer’s unique firm trade name in a keyword advertisement campaign is prohibited"}],"note":"Extends 2010 FEO 14 to unique firm trade names."},{"id":"nm-sbnm-2024-001","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NM","jurisdictionKey":"new-mexico","jurisdictionName":"New Mexico","fips":"35","body":"State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"2024-001","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024-01-17","dateNote":null,"title":"Practicing Law “Virtually”","topics":["advertising-general","websites"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"A New Mexico lawyer may practice remotely from another state, but must not advertise an office where not licensed, and websites should state where the lawyer is licensed.","text":"A New Mexico lawyer may practice remotely from another state, but must not advertise an office where not licensed, and websites should state where the lawyer is licensed.","whatToDo":"If you work remotely from another state, put your licensing limits on your website and letterhead and use a New Mexico mailing address.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["16-505","16-701","16-804(C)"],"url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/FINAL%20Virtual%20Practice%20Opinion_%20January%2017%202024.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"all representations, such as a website or letterhead, should clearly indicate the lawyer's jurisdictional limits","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024-01-17","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee, 2024-001","url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/FINAL%20Virtual%20Practice%20Opinion_%20January%2017%202024.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"all representations, such as a website or letterhead, should clearly indicate the lawyer's jurisdictional limits"}],"note":null},{"id":"md-msba-2024-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MD","jurisdictionKey":"maryland","jurisdictionName":"Maryland","fips":"24","body":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics","number":"Ethics Docket No. 2024-01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2024","dateNote":"year from the docket number; the inquiry letter is dated November 13, 2023; no approval date shown on the page","title":"Incentive Agreements with Independent Contractors for Law Firm Advertising","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not pay an outside marketing contractor a percentage of the firm's overall net income or revenue, because that is fee-splitting with a nonlawyer.","text":"A lawyer may not pay an outside marketing contractor a percentage of the firm's overall net income or revenue, because that is fee-splitting with a nonlawyer.","whatToDo":"Pay marketing contractors a set fee, not a share of your firm's revenue or profits, and review their ads before they run.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the MSBA ethics opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["19-305.3","19-305.4","19-307.1-19-307.5"],"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2024/2024-01.aspx","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Entering into an incentive agreement with an independent contractor based on a law firm's overall financial performance constitutes fee-splitting with a non-lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2024","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket No. 2024-01","url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2024/2024-01.aspx","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Entering into an incentive agreement with an independent contractor based on a law firm's overall financial performance constitutes fee-splitting with a non-lawyer"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1262","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1262","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-12-19","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Recognition of lawyer on not-for-profit organization’s website","topics":["advertising-general","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise with or sponsor a nonprofit website, but may not pay to be listed on its legal-options page, because that pays for a recommendation.","text":"A lawyer may advertise with or sponsor a nonprofit website, but may not pay to be listed on its legal-options page, because that pays for a recommendation.","whatToDo":"Sponsor or advertise with nonprofits if you like, but do not pay to be listed as a suggested lawyer on their legal-help pages.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","7.1(a)","7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1262-recognition-of-lawyer-on-not-for-profit-organizations-website/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may pay for an advertisement on the website of a not-for-profit organization that provides online medical information for victims of toxic chemicals.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-12-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1262","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1262-recognition-of-lawyer-on-not-for-profit-organizations-website/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may pay for an advertisement on the website of a not-for-profit organization that provides online medical information for victims of toxic chemicals."}],"note":null},{"id":"fl-flbar-sca-bona-fide-office","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2023-08-21","dateNote":"date shown is the 'Revised August 21, 2023' date on the page; original adoption date not shown","title":"Guidelines for Determining Whether an Advertised Location is a Bona Fide Office","topics":["advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"An ad may list only a real office the firm uses regularly; shared or hourly space may be described only as 'available by appointment' or 'for consultation'.","text":"An ad may list only a real office the firm uses regularly; shared or hourly space may be described only as 'available by appointment' or 'for consultation'.","whatToDo":"List only staffed, regularly used offices in ads; label virtual or shared spaces 'by appointment only'.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.12(a)(2)"],"url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/etad002/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The SCA has developed the following criteria for determining whether an advertised location is a bona fide office","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising, None","url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/etad002/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The SCA has developed the following criteria for determining whether an advertised location is a bona fide office"}],"note":"Formal SCA guideline posted on the Bar's Advertising Regulation page; lists five criteria (sign, staff answering phones, full-time staff, legal services furnished there, a lawyer present regularly)."},{"id":"fl-flbar-sca-lawyer-statement-qualifications","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2023-08-21","dateNote":"date shown is the 'Revised August 21, 2023' date on the page; original adoption date not shown","title":"Guidelines for a Lawyer Statement of Qualifications and Experience","topics":["solicitation","spanish-or-other-language"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","other-language-ads"],"holding":"Every direct written solicitation must come with a factual statement of the lawyer's experience, including cases tried where relevant, and it must be in the same language as the ad.","text":"Every direct written solicitation must come with a factual statement of the lawyer's experience, including cases tried where relevant, and it must be in the same language as the ad.","whatToDo":"Attach a clear statement of your experience, bar admission date and trial count to every direct mail or email solicitation, translated if the ad is not in English.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.18(b)(2)(C)","4-7.12(c)","4-7.12(d)"],"url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/guidelines-for-a-lawyer-statement-of-qualifications-and-experience/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"If the advertisement appears in a language other than English, the statement of qualifications must appear in that language.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising, None","url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/guidelines-for-a-lawyer-statement-of-qualifications-and-experience/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"If the advertisement appears in a language other than English, the statement of qualifications must appear in that language."}],"note":"Companion SCA guidelines for a law firm's statement and for a qualifying provider's statement are on the same Bar page set and were not recorded separately."},{"id":"fl-flbar-sca-networking-guidelines","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2023-08-21","dateNote":"date of last revision shown on page (\"Revised August 21, 2023\"); original issue date not shown","title":"Advertising Guidelines for Networking Sites","topics":["social-media","solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["social-media","solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"Social media used to promote a practice must follow the ad rules; paid or boosted posts must be filed, and targeted posts must meet the solicitation rules.","text":"Social media used to promote a practice must follow the ad rules; paid or boosted posts must be filed, and targeted posts must meet the solicitation rules.","whatToDo":"Treat business social pages as ads, file paid or boosted posts with the Bar, and follow the direct-solicitation rules for targeted posts and invitations.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.11","4-7.13","4-7.16","4-7.18(b)","4-7.19","4-7.20"],"url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/advertising-guidelines-for-networking-sites/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Pages appearing on networking sites that are used to promote the lawyer or law firm’s practice are subject to the lawyer advertising rules.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising, None","url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/advertising-guidelines-for-networking-sites/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Pages appearing on networking sites that are used to promote the lawyer or law firm’s practice are subject to the lawyer advertising rules."}],"note":"Committee guidelines published on the Bar advertising page; they also describe a January 31, 2020 Board of Governors decision treating targeted social media posts as targeted electronic solicitations."},{"id":"fl-flbar-sca-video-guidelines","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2023-08-21","dateNote":"date of last revision shown on page (\"Revised August 21, 2023\"); original issue date not shown","title":"Guidelines for Video Sharing Sites","topics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"holding":"Practice videos on sites like YouTube must follow the ad rules but need not be filed; banner ads there must be filed unless limited to safe-harbor content.","text":"Practice videos on sites like YouTube must follow the ad rules but need not be filed; banner ads there must be filed unless limited to safe-harbor content.","whatToDo":"Keep marketing videos accurate and within the ad rules, and file any paid banner ads on video sites with the Bar.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.11","4-7.18(b)","4-7.19","4-7.20(e)"],"url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/guidelines-for-video-sharing-sites/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Videos appearing on video sharing sites that are used to promote the lawyer or law firm’s practice are subject to the lawyer advertising rules.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Standing Committee on Advertising, None","url":"https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etad/guidelines-for-video-sharing-sites/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Videos appearing on video sharing sites that are used to promote the lawyer or law firm’s practice are subject to the lawyer advertising rules."}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2023-07","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2023-07","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-08-04","dateNote":null,"title":"Discharged Lawyer’s Solicitation of Former Client","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"With rare exceptions, a fired lawyer may not solicit the former client to come back after the client hired a new lawyer.","text":"With rare exceptions, a fired lawyer may not solicit the former client to come back after the client hired a new lawyer.","whatToDo":"After a client fires you and hires new counsel, do not contact the client to win the case back.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.16","4.2","7.3"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Adv.-Op.-2023-7-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a discharged lawyer may not solicit a former client to continue a client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2023-07","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Adv.-Op.-2023-7-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a discharged lawyer may not solicit a former client to continue a client"}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2023-08","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2023-08","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-08-04","dateNote":null,"title":"Departing Lawyer Reimbursing Firm for Advertising Costs","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may not make a departing lawyer pay 25% of fees on transferred cases to repay the firm's advertising costs.","text":"A firm may not make a departing lawyer pay 25% of fees on transferred cases to repay the firm's advertising costs.","whatToDo":"Do not put clauses in lawyer contracts that charge departing lawyers a share of fees to recoup ad spend.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5","5.6"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Adv.-Op-2023-08-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The addition of 25 percent of the overall recovery of attorney fees is an impermissible restriction on the departing lawyer’s right to practice","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-08-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2023-08","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Adv.-Op-2023-08-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The addition of 25 percent of the overall recovery of attorney fees is an impermissible restriction on the departing lawyer’s right to practice"}],"note":"Edge of scope: about recouping advertising costs, decided under Rules 1.5 and 5.6."},{"id":"wi-sbw-ef-23-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WI","jurisdictionKey":"wisconsin","jurisdictionName":"Wisconsin","fips":"55","body":"State Bar of Wisconsin, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"EF-23-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-06-22","dateNote":null,"title":"Responding to Online Criticism","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal client information when answering online criticism without the client's informed consent, and usually the best move is not to respond.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal client information when answering online criticism without the client's informed consent, and usually the best move is not to respond.","whatToDo":"Do not answer negative reviews with any client details; if you reply at all, keep it short, calm and free of confidential information.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["SCR 20:1.6","SCR 20:1.6(c)(4)","SCR 20:1.9(c)","SCR 20:1.18(b)"],"url":"https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/EF-23-01%20Responding%20to%20Online%20Criticism.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A response to online criticism which reveals protected information is not permitted by the self-defense exception","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-06-22","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Wisconsin, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, EF-23-01","url":"https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/EF-23-01%20Responding%20to%20Online%20Criticism.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A response to online criticism which reveals protected information is not permitted by the self-defense exception"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1254","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1254","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-03-06","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Affiliation with a lawyer not admitted in New York","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A New York lawyer may work and share fees with an out-of-state immigration lawyer in New York only if there is no unauthorized practice and nothing misleads the public.","text":"A New York lawyer may work and share fees with an out-of-state immigration lawyer in New York only if there is no unauthorized practice and nothing misleads the public.","whatToDo":"When working with a lawyer not admitted in New York, make your letterhead and ads clearly show who is admitted where.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.5(b)","7.1(a)","7.5(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1254/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the lawyers’ communications with clients and the public are not misleading","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-03-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1254","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1254/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the lawyers’ communications with clients and the public are not misleading"}],"note":"Advertising aspect is the requirement that public communications not mislead about admission status."},{"id":"nj-guideline-4-2023","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising)","number":"Attorney Advertising Guideline 4","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2023-02-28","dateNote":"adopted 2023-02-28, effective immediately; published 2023-03-02","title":"Legal Assistance Organizations and Retention of Posted Website Materials","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"The rule that lawyers back up website content monthly and keep it three years does not bind approved legal assistance organizations, though they should keep backups.","text":"The rule that lawyers back up website content monthly and keep it three years does not bind approved legal assistance organizations, though they should keep backups.","whatToDo":"Private firms: keep monthly backups of your website for three years under RPC 7.2(b).","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(b)","R. 1:21-11(b)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-new-attorney-advertising-guideline-4-legal-assistance-organizations-and-retention-of","sourceKind":"official","quote":"does not apply to legal assistance organizations that are approved pursuant to Rule 1 :21-11 (b ). However, legal assistance organizations should make reasonable efforts","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-02-28","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising), Attorney Advertising Guideline 4","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-new-attorney-advertising-guideline-4-legal-assistance-organizations-and-retention-of","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"does not apply to legal assistance organizations that are approved pursuant to Rule 1 :21-11 (b ). However, legal assistance organizations should make reasonable efforts"}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2023-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2023-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-02-03","dateNote":null,"title":"Solicitation of Clients by Nonprofit Legal Aid Lawyers","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A nonprofit legal aid lawyer who gets no fee may solicit in person, and may send direct mail to people facing suit after confirming they were served.","text":"A nonprofit legal aid lawyer who gets no fee may solicit in person, and may send direct mail to people facing suit after confirming they were served.","whatToDo":"If you are a no-fee legal aid lawyer, you may reach out directly, but check service of process before mailing.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 1990-11","OH Adv. Op. 1988-3"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.3"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Adv.-Op.-2023-02-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A nonprofit legal aid lawyer may engage in direct in-person solicitation of an individual who may benefit from representation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-02-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2023-02","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Adv.-Op.-2023-02-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A nonprofit legal aid lawyer may engage in direct in-person solicitation of an individual who may benefit from representation"}],"note":"Withdraws Adv. Ops. 1990-11 and 1988-3."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1251","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1251","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-01-12","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"YouTube channel; general legal information; advertising","topics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"holding":"Making YouTube videos to educate the public is generally allowed and is not automatically advertising, but some videos could count as advertising.","text":"Making YouTube videos to educate the public is generally allowed and is not automatically advertising, but some videos could count as advertising.","whatToDo":"If your videos promote your firm to get hired, treat them as ads and follow the ad rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","7.1"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1251/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"creating videos for a YouTube channel to educate the public or legal profession about matters of general or specific interest is a permitted activity","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-01-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1251","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1251/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"creating videos for a YouTube channel to educate the public or legal profession about matters of general or specific interest is a permitted activity"}],"note":null},{"id":"md-msba-2022-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MD","jurisdictionKey":"maryland","jurisdictionName":"Maryland","fips":"24","body":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics","number":"Ethics Docket No. 2022-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023-01-11","dateNote":"\"Date approved by Committee: January 11, 2023\" (docket number is 2022-02)","title":"Internet Advertising: Competitive Keyword Purchases","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"A majority of the committee found that buying another lawyer's or firm's name as a search keyword violates Maryland's misconduct rule (Rule 8.4).","text":"A majority of the committee found that buying another lawyer's or firm's name as a search keyword violates Maryland's misconduct rule (Rule 8.4).","whatToDo":"Do not bid on competitor lawyers' or firms' names in Maryland search-ad campaigns; remove them from keyword lists.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the MSBA ethics opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["8.4","7.1"],"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2022/2022-02.aspx","sourceKind":"official","quote":"It is the majority opinion of this Committee that the purchase of a competitor's name as a keyword in an internet marketing campaign violates","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023-01-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket No. 2022-02","url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2022/2022-02.aspx","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"It is the majority opinion of this Committee that the purchase of a competitor's name as a keyword in an internet marketing campaign violates"}],"note":"Majority opinion. Note the contrary New Jersey result (In re Opinion No. 735, 2025)."},{"id":"sc-scbar-23-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"23-03","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2023","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Radio Data System (RDS) dashboard text ads; name-and-address requirement]","topics":["advertising-general","trade-names","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A very short radio dashboard ad showing only the firm name, the word \"Call\", and the firm phone number does not need a lawyer’s name and office address.","text":"A very short radio dashboard ad showing only the firm name, the word \"Call\", and the firm phone number does not need a lawyer’s name and office address.","whatToDo":"Bare-bones ads with only firm name and contact details are fine; add a lawyer name and office address once the ad says more.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(d)"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-23-03/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The use of RDS advertising with the format proposed including only the firm name, the word “Call” and the firm phone number complies with Rule","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2023","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 23-03","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-23-03/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The use of RDS advertising with the format proposed including only the firm name, the word “Call” and the firm phone number complies with Rule"}],"note":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"az-aeac-eo-19-0010","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"AZ","jurisdictionKey":"arizona","jurisdictionName":"Arizona","fips":"04","body":"Supreme Court of Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"EO-19-0010","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-12-06","dateNote":"'Date Published' on the committee's Opinions Issued list","title":"[Responding to a former client's negative online review]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may answer an online review in general terms, and reveal limited confidential information only to rebut a serious misconduct accusation, and only as needed.","text":"A lawyer may answer an online review in general terms, and reveal limited confidential information only to rebut a serious misconduct accusation, and only as needed.","whatToDo":"Reply to bad reviews without client details; reveal anything confidential only to rebut a serious accusation, keep it minimal, and get ethics advice first.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["ER 1.6","ER 1.9"],"url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/26/Revised%20Draft%20EO-19-0010_1-11-8-22%20AH.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"lawyers are free to respond to online comments in any manner that does not reveal any confidential information or violate any other ethical or legal","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-12-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of Arizona, Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, EO-19-0010","url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/26/Revised%20Draft%20EO-19-0010_1-11-8-22%20AH.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"lawyers are free to respond to online comments in any manner that does not reveal any confidential information or violate any other ethical or legal"}],"note":"The committee's list links this opinion to a file named 'Revised Draft EO-19-0010_1-11-8-22 AH.pdf'; that linked file was read as the issued text. Arizona's committee notes its conclusion departs from most other opinions (including ABA Formal Op. 496)."},{"id":"mi-sbm-ri-385","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MI","jurisdictionKey":"michigan","jurisdictionName":"Michigan","fips":"26","body":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"RI-385","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-11-18","dateNote":null,"title":"[Keyword advertising using competitors' names]","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"A lawyer may not run keyword ads using another lawyer's or firm's name or trade name without that lawyer's express consent.","text":"A lawyer may not run keyword ads using another lawyer's or firm's name or trade name without that lawyer's express consent.","whatToDo":"Remove competitor names from your paid search keywords unless you have their written consent.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.5(d)","8.4(b)"],"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-385","sourceKind":"official","quote":"An attorney may not utilize a keyword advertising campaign that involves using the name of another attorney, law firm","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-11-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, RI-385","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-385","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"An attorney may not utilize a keyword advertising campaign that involves using the name of another attorney, law firm"}],"note":null},{"id":"ct-cba-22-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CT","jurisdictionKey":"connecticut","jurisdictionName":"Connecticut","fips":"09","body":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Informal Opinion 2022-02","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-11-16","dateNote":null,"title":"Referrals by a Retired Attorney","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A retired or inactive lawyer may not be paid referral fees for matters referred after retirement; only practicing lawyers sharing responsibility may share fees.","text":"A retired or inactive lawyer may not be paid referral fees for matters referred after retirement; only practicing lawyers sharing responsibility may share fees.","whatToDo":"Do not pay referral fees to retired or inactive lawyers, or to anyone who is not a practicing lawyer sharing responsibility under Rule 1.5(e).","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the CBA informal opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)","1.5(e)"],"url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2022-opinions/opinion-22-02.pdf?sfvrsn=a79f38f_6","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Regardless of whether the lawyer is retired, permanently retired, or on inactive status, payment of a referral fee for matters referred post-retirement would not be","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-11-16","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, Informal Opinion 2022-02","url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2022-opinions/opinion-22-02.pdf?sfvrsn=a79f38f_6","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Regardless of whether the lawyer is retired, permanently retired, or on inactive status, payment of a referral fee for matters referred post-retirement would not be"}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2022-201","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2022-201","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-11","dateNote":"Approved by the Board of Governors, November 2022.","title":"Responding to Negative Online Comments and Reviews","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer generally may not reveal client information to answer a negative review, but may invite the poster to talk or point to other reviews.","text":"A lawyer generally may not reveal client information to answer a negative review, but may invite the poster to talk or point to other reviews.","whatToDo":"Respond to bad reviews without any client details; invite the reviewer to call you or point readers to other reviews.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on OSB opinions table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(b)(4)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2022-201.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may respond to a negative online review by requesting that the person posting contact the lawyer to discuss any concerns.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2022-201","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2022-201.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may respond to a negative online review by requesting that the person posting contact the lawyer to discuss any concerns."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-101","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-101","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-11","dateNote":"Revised 2022 version approved by the Board of Governors, November 2022; original 2005.","title":"Unauthorized Practice of Law: Lawyer as Mediator, Trade Names, Division of Fees with Nonlawyer","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer and a psychologist may run a mediation service under a trade name like 'Family Mediation Center'; if it practices law, the name must meet the ad rules.","text":"A lawyer and a psychologist may run a mediation service under a trade name like 'Family Mediation Center'; if it practices law, the name must meet the ad rules.","whatToDo":"If your business uses a trade name and offers legal services, make sure the name is not misleading under the advertising rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2022 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["2.4","5.4","5.5(a)","7.1","8.4(a)(3)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-101.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"If the mediation service would not involve the practice of law, there would be no particular ethical limitation on the use of a trade name","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-101","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-101.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"If the mediation service would not involve the practice of law, there would be no particular ethical limitation on the use of a trade name"}],"note":"Opinion is mostly about mediation and UPL; trade name is Question 3."},{"id":"il-isba-2204","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"22-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-10","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Use of Deceased or Retired Partners' Names in Firm Name and Proper Characterization of \"Of Counsel\" Relationship","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"After restructuring as a PLLC, a firm may keep deceased or retired partners' names if there is continuing succession in the firm's identity.","text":"After restructuring as a PLLC, a firm may keep deceased or retired partners' names if there is continuing succession in the firm's identity.","whatToDo":"Keep a retired or deceased partner's name only if the firm continues in succession, and use \"of counsel\" only for real ongoing relationships.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2204","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a law firm may continue to use the names of its deceased or retired partners in its name provided that there has been a continuing","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 22-04","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2204","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a law firm may continue to use the names of its deceased or retired partners in its name provided that there has been a continuing"}],"note":null},{"id":"ca-ocba-2022-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"Orange County Bar Association, Professionalism and Ethics Committee","number":"2022-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-07-27","dateNote":null,"title":"Attorney Bios","topics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"researchTopics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"holding":"Without informed consent, a lawyer may not name a client or describe a matter in bios or marketing if it would embarrass or harm the client, nor misleadingly.","text":"Without informed consent, a lawyer may not name a client or describe a matter in bios or marketing if it would embarrass or harm the client, nor misleadingly.","whatToDo":"Get written client consent before naming clients, showing their logos, or describing their matters on your website bios.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on OCBA formal opinions page; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6","Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(e)(1)","7.1"],"url":"https://www.ocbar.org/docDownload/2889775","sourceKind":"official","quote":"an attorney still would be precluded from listing the client representation if the listing is in any way misleading","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-07-27","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Orange County Bar Association, Professionalism and Ethics Committee, 2022-01","url":"https://www.ocbar.org/docDownload/2889775","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"an attorney still would be precluded from listing the client representation if the listing is in any way misleading"}],"note":null},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2022-feo-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2022 FEO 3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-07-22","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Inclusion on Allied Professional’s List of Recommended Lawyers","topics":["fee-sharing","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may be on a doctor’s or other professional’s list of recommended lawyers if there is no referral swap and the professional does not improperly solicit for the lawyer.","text":"A lawyer may be on a doctor’s or other professional’s list of recommended lawyers if there is no referral swap and the professional does not improperly solicit for the lawyer.","whatToDo":"Do not trade referrals with doctors or other professionals, and do not have them pitch your services to their patients.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(b)","7.3","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2022-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may be included in an allied professional’s list of recommended lawyers provided that the professional does not disseminate the lawyer’s name and information","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-07-22","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2022 FEO 3","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2022-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may be included in an allied professional’s list of recommended lawyers provided that the professional does not disseminate the lawyer’s name and information"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1241","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1241","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-06-06","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"New York attorney with out-of-state office; attorney advertising and letterhead","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer admitted in New York and Florida, with only a Florida office, may say on Florida letterhead that he is admitted in New York if not misleading.","text":"A lawyer admitted in New York and Florida, with only a Florida office, may say on Florida letterhead that he is admitted in New York if not misleading.","whatToDo":"State your bar admissions accurately on letterhead and ads, especially if your office is in another state.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","7.1(a)","7.5(a)","8.4(c)","8.5(b)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1241/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may state on the letterhead of his Florida office that he is “admitted to the New York Bar,”","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-06-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1241","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1241/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may state on the letterhead of his Florida office that he is “admitted to the New York Bar,”"}],"note":null},{"id":"il-isba-2202","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"22-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-05","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Lawyer participating in for-profit client matching service","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A for-profit matching service may be used if matching is automated, it does not vouch for lawyers, stays out of the case, and its fees are reasonable and not case-linked.","text":"A for-profit matching service may be used if matching is automated, it does not vouch for lawyers, stays out of the case, and its fees are reasonable and not case-linked.","whatToDo":"Use a lead or matching service only if it auto-matches, does not endorse you, charges a flat fee unrelated to cases, and recheck it at each renewal.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.18","5.4","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2202","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the matches are automated and completed without discretion on the part of the service as to what lawyer to match with a potential client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 22-02","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2202","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the matches are automated and completed without discretion on the part of the service as to what lawyer to match with a potential client"}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-22-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"22-04","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-04-11","dateNote":null,"title":"[Advertising in Utah by a firm with no Utah-licensed lawyer]","topics":["advertising-general","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","solicitation"],"holding":"A personal-injury firm with no Utah-licensed lawyer misleads people if it advertises or solicits in Utah without a clear disclaimer that its lawyers are not licensed in Utah.","text":"A personal-injury firm with no Utah-licensed lawyer misleads people if it advertises or solicits in Utah without a clear disclaimer that its lawyers are not licensed in Utah.","whatToDo":"If none of your lawyers is licensed in Utah, put a clear licensing disclaimer on every billboard, mailer and flyer you use there.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 7.1"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-04.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Such advertisements or solicitations may be permissible if an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language is included.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-04-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 22-04","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-04.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Such advertisements or solicitations may be permissible if an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language is included."}],"note":null},{"id":"nv-sbn-59","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NV","jurisdictionKey":"nevada","jurisdictionName":"Nevada","fips":"32","body":"State Bar of Nevada, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","number":"59","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-03-11","dateNote":null,"title":"Advertising Filing Requirements (coworking office space; SCR 42.1; NRPC 7.2A)","topics":["advertising-general","websites","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"A Nevada lawyer may use a coworking space as a Nevada office; paid ads listing that address must say in-person meetings are by appointment only.","text":"A Nevada lawyer may use a coworking space as a Nevada office; paid ads listing that address must say in-person meetings are by appointment only.","whatToDo":"If you list a shared or coworking office in ads or on your site, say meetings are by appointment only, and keep filing paid ads with the bar.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["SCR 42.1","NRPC 7.1","NRPC 7.2A","NRPC 7.5A"],"url":"https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Opinion-59-Co-working-space-for-practice-of-attorneys-admitted-in-NV-but-not-maintaining-NV-office-3-11-22-FINAL.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Business cards, letterhead, and websites are not within the scope of the filing requirements imposed by the Rule.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-03-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Nevada, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 59","url":"https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Opinion-59-Co-working-space-for-practice-of-attorneys-admitted-in-NV-but-not-maintaining-NV-office-3-11-22-FINAL.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Business cards, letterhead, and websites are not within the scope of the filing requirements imposed by the Rule."}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-22-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"22-02","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-03-07","dateNote":null,"title":"[Effect of 2020 rule changes (Rules 7.1-7.5, 5.4) on prior opinions]","topics":["advertising-general","solicitation","fee-sharing","awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","solicitation","referral-marketing-fees","awards-ratings"],"holding":"After Utah deleted Rules 7.2-7.5, older 'false or misleading' opinions still apply, but old bans on paid referrals, fee-sharing and in-person solicitation should not be relied on.","text":"After Utah deleted Rules 7.2-7.5, older 'false or misleading' opinions still apply, but old bans on paid referrals, fee-sharing and in-person solicitation should not be relied on.","whatToDo":"Treat Utah's old advertising opinions with care: keep following the 'not false or misleading' ones, and do not rely on old bans on paid referrals or in-person solicitation.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; revisited in Op. 25-02 (2025) on the kickback statute","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 7.1","Rule 7.1(b)","Rule 5.4","former Rules 7.2-7.5"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-02-Rules-Changes-and-Prior-Opinions.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Opinions that relied upon communication being \"false or misleading\" are still applicable.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-03-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 22-02","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-02-Rules-Changes-and-Prior-Opinions.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Opinions that relied upon communication being \"false or misleading\" are still applicable."}],"note":"Lists which earlier opinions remain applicable, are modified, or are withdrawn (e.g., withdraws 99-04; modifies 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, 17-05)."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1237","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1237","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-03-03","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Conflict of interest and referral fees; real estate transaction referred by broker associated with lawyer’s real estate agency","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not take real estate closings referred by an agent tied to the lawyer’s own real estate company when the agent and company split the commission.","text":"A lawyer may not take real estate closings referred by an agent tied to the lawyer’s own real estate company when the agent and company split the commission.","whatToDo":"Do not take legal work referred through a business you own if that business earns a commission on the same deal.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7(a)(2)","1.7(b)","7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1237/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not accept the referral of real estate closings from a real estate agent who is associated with a real estate company owned","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-03-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1237","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1237/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not accept the referral of real estate closings from a real estate agent who is associated with a real estate company owned"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1235","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1235","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022-01-03","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Firm Name; Trade Names; Assumed Names","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may use two different assumed names for separate practice areas if that is not misleading.","text":"A firm may use two different assumed names for separate practice areas if that is not misleading.","whatToDo":"You may brand practice areas under different names, but make sure no name misleads the public.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5(b)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1235/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may operate under two different assumed names that distinguish separate practice areas of the firm","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022-01-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1235","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1235/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may operate under two different assumed names that distinguish separate practice areas of the firm"}],"note":null},{"id":"sc-scbar-22-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"22-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Paid featured placement on Expertise.com]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","specialist-claims","awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","specialist-claims","awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may not market through Expertise.com, because taking part in a listing whose site language implies the lawyer is an \"expert\" breaks the ad rules.","text":"A lawyer may not market through Expertise.com, because taking part in a listing whose site language implies the lawyer is an \"expert\" breaks the ad rules.","whatToDo":"Do not claim, pay for, or add to a directory listing whose wording you could not lawfully use yourself.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2","7.4(b)","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-22-02/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may not adopt, endorse, claim, or contribute to any online listing that contains language or other material that would violate the Rules","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 22-02","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-22-02/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may not adopt, endorse, claim, or contribute to any online listing that contains language or other material that would violate the Rules"}],"note":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"sd-sbsd-2022-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SD","jurisdictionKey":"south-dakota","jurisdictionName":"South Dakota","fips":"46","body":"State Bar of South Dakota, Ethics Committee","number":"2022-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2022","dateNote":"only the year is shown; PDF uploaded to the bar's site in 2022-07","title":"[Media misquote implying expertise or certification]","topics":["specialist-claims"],"researchTopics":["specialist-claims"],"holding":"A lawyer is not responsible when a reporter wrongly says the lawyer claimed expertise or a specialty, but the lawyer's own website must be accurate.","text":"A lawyer is not responsible when a reporter wrongly says the lawyer claimed expertise or a specialty, but the lawyer's own website must be accurate.","whatToDo":"Keep your website free of specialist or expert claims you cannot back up; you need not chase a reporter's misquote.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.4","7.4(e)"],"url":"https://edge.growthzonecms.com/sites/1386/2022/07/2022-04-cccf7901-ee03-4d93-a2ca-3bc5b82787e9.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyer should, however, ensure that any statements on Lawyer’s website, such as the ones the reporter quoted, are accurate.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2022","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of South Dakota, Ethics Committee, 2022-04","url":"https://edge.growthzonecms.com/sites/1386/2022/07/2022-04-cccf7901-ee03-4d93-a2ca-3bc5b82787e9.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyer should, however, ensure that any statements on Lawyer’s website, such as the ones the reporter quoted, are accurate."}],"note":"PDF is linked from statebarofsouthdakota.com/ethics-opinions/ and hosted on the bar's CMS file host (growthzonecms.com)."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1233","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1233","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-12-10","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Law firm associates and the phrase “and Associates” in law firm name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A solo lawyer may not use \"and Associates\" in her firm name or call lawyers from other firms her associates.","text":"A solo lawyer may not use \"and Associates\" in her firm name or call lawyers from other firms her associates.","whatToDo":"Use \"and Associates\" only if your own firm actually employs associates.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":[],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1233/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may not include in her law firm name the phrase “and Associates” when she is referring to associates employed by another firm","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-12-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1233","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1233/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may not include in her law firm name the phrase “and Associates” when she is referring to associates employed by another firm"}],"note":"No rules line shown in the posted digest."},{"id":"nm-sbnm-2021-001","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NM","jurisdictionKey":"new-mexico","jurisdictionName":"New Mexico","fips":"35","body":"State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"2021-001","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-11-15","dateNote":null,"title":"Fee Splitting when one lawyer provides no services","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A New Mexico lawyer may not split a fee with a lawyer who only signed up the client and did no work, because that is a forbidden referral fee.","text":"A New Mexico lawyer may not split a fee with a lawyer who only signed up the client and did no work, because that is a forbidden referral fee.","whatToDo":"Do not pay another lawyer just for sending you a case; split fees only by work done or joint responsibility, with the client's written agreement.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["16-105(F)","16-702(B)"],"url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/AboutUs/committees/Ethics/2021/2021-001.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Any payment for referral (i.e., referral fee) that does not squarely fall within one of these exceptions is an impermissible referral fee prohibited by the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-11-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee, 2021-001","url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/AboutUs/committees/Ethics/2021/2021-001.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Any payment for referral (i.e., referral fee) that does not squarely fall within one of these exceptions is an impermissible referral fee prohibited by the"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1232","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1232","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-11-10","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Attorney advertising","topics":["advertising-general","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer who asks a fertility clinic to list him on its website as a reproduction lawyer is advertising, not soliciting.","text":"A lawyer who asks a fertility clinic to list him on its website as a reproduction lawyer is advertising, not soliciting.","whatToDo":"Treat listings you request on third-party websites as ads and follow the ad rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1232/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"to request to be included on the clinic’s website as a lawyer who practices in the area of assisted reproduction is engaged in attorney advertising,","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-11-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1232","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1232/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"to request to be included on the clinic’s website as a lawyer who practices in the area of assisted reproduction is engaged in attorney advertising,"}],"note":null},{"id":"nh-nhba-2021-22-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NH","jurisdictionKey":"new-hampshire","jurisdictionName":"New Hampshire","fips":"33","body":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"Advisory Opinion #2021-22/01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-10-21","dateNote":"submitted to the NHBA Board of Governors at its October 21, 2021 meeting","title":"Inactive Lawyers and Referral Fees","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"An inactive lawyer may not take referral fees from an active New Hampshire lawyer for matters arising after going inactive; earlier work or clients may still be paid for.","text":"An inactive lawyer may not take referral fees from an active New Hampshire lawyer for matters arising after going inactive; earlier work or clients may still be paid for.","whatToDo":"Do not pay referral fees to inactive lawyers for new matters they send you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the NHBA ethics list","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5","5.5"],"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/2021-22-01-inactive-lawyers-and-referral-fees/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"permitting payments of referral fees to inactive lawyers would not further the purpose of New Hampshire's somewhat unique referral fee rule","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-10-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee, Advisory Opinion #2021-22/01","url":"https://www.nhbar.org/2021-22-01-inactive-lawyers-and-referral-fees/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"permitting payments of referral fees to inactive lawyers would not further the purpose of New Hampshire's somewhat unique referral fee rule"}],"note":"Page shows abstract and excerpt with a 'Read More' link; holding taken from the abstract."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1230","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1230","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-10-05","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Firm names; trade names","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may not put a dead lawyer’s name on its letterhead unless that lawyer is part of the firm’s line of succession.","text":"A firm may not put a dead lawyer’s name on its letterhead unless that lawyer is part of the firm’s line of succession.","whatToDo":"Keep a deceased lawyer’s name only if your firm truly succeeds that lawyer’s practice.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5(a) & (b)","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1230/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may not include on its letterhead the name of deceased attorney who does not stand in a continuing line of succession with","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-10-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1230","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1230/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may not include on its letterhead the name of deceased attorney who does not stand in a continuing line of succession with"}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2021-10","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2021-10","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-10-01","dateNote":null,"title":"Practicing Under a Common Trade Name Franchised Nationally to Lawyers and Law Firms","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer or firm may not practice under a common trade name franchised nationally to lawyers.","text":"A lawyer or firm may not practice under a common trade name franchised nationally to lawyers.","whatToDo":"Do not join a national law-firm franchise that has you practice under its shared brand name.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 1997-1"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Adv.-Op.-2021-10-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may not practice under a common trade name which is franchised nationally to lawyers.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-10-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2021-10","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Adv.-Op.-2021-10-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may not practice under a common trade name which is franchised nationally to lawyers."}],"note":"Withdraws Adv. Op. 1997-1."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1227","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1227","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-08-26","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Advertising, solicitation, targeted email to prospective clients","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"An out-of-state firm’s email to a list of specific New Yorkers seeking clients for future class actions is both an ad and a solicitation under New York rules.","text":"An out-of-state firm’s email to a list of specific New Yorkers seeking clients for future class actions is both an ad and a solicitation under New York rules.","whatToDo":"Treat targeted emails to specific people as solicitations and follow New York's current solicitation rules (amended June 1, 2026).","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","7.1","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1227/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"seeking clients for future false advertising and products liability class actions, is both an advertisement and a solicitation under Rules 7.1 and 7.3","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-08-26","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1227","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1227/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"seeking clients for future false advertising and products liability class actions, is both an advertisement and a solicitation under Rules 7.1 and 7.3"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1226","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1226","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-08-16","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Use of Domain Name Different from Name of Law Firm","topics":["trade-names","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer may use a website domain name that differs from the firm name, as long as neither one, alone or together, is misleading.","text":"A lawyer may use a website domain name that differs from the firm name, as long as neither one, alone or together, is misleading.","whatToDo":"Pick any domain name you like, as long as it and your firm name do not mislead.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5(b)(1)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1226/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"An attorney may use a domain name that differs from the name of the law firm under which the attorney practices","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-08-16","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1226","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1226/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"An attorney may use a domain name that differs from the name of the law firm under which the attorney practices"}],"note":null},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2020-feo-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2020 FEO 1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-07-16","dateNote":"adopted date; opinion is numbered 2020","title":"Responding to Negative Online Reviews","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may answer a client’s negative online review in a professional, restrained way but may not include confidential information.","text":"A lawyer may answer a client’s negative online review in a professional, restrained way but may not include confidential information.","whatToDo":"Reply to bad reviews briefly and politely, never with client details, and never offer something in exchange for changing the review.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(b)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2020-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer is not permitted to include confidential information in a response to a client’s negative online review","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-07-16","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2020 FEO 1","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2020-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer is not permitted to include confidential information in a response to a client’s negative online review"}],"note":null},{"id":"de-dsba-2021-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DE","jurisdictionKey":"delaware","jurisdictionName":"Delaware","fips":"10","body":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Formal Opinion 2021-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-07-09","dateNote":null,"title":"[Practicing Delaware law remotely from a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed]","topics":["advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"Delaware lawyers may practice Delaware law remotely from another state, but may not advertise or list an office there; a local address in ads can create an office presence.","text":"Delaware lawyers may practice Delaware law remotely from another state, but may not advertise or list an office there; a local address in ads can create an office presence.","whatToDo":"Do not put a home-office address in a state where you are not licensed on your website, letterhead, cards or ads.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the DSBA ethics opinions index","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.5(a)","5.5(b)(1)"],"url":"http://media1.dsba.org/public/Committees/Ethics/DSBA%20PEC%20Opinion%202021-1.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer who includes a local jurisdiction address on websites, letterhead, business cards, or advertising may be said to have established an office","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-07-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2021-1","url":"http://media1.dsba.org/public/Committees/Ethics/DSBA%20PEC%20Opinion%202021-1.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer who includes a local jurisdiction address on websites, letterhead, business cards, or advertising may be said to have established an office"}],"note":"Mainly a remote-practice opinion; included for its advertising/holding-out limits. DSBA index says the committee issued no opinions 2012-2020."},{"id":"nj-caa-47-acpe-741","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising and Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (joint)","number":"CAA Opinion 47 / ACPE Opinion 741","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-06-21","dateNote":"issued 2021-06-21; published 2021-06-24","title":"Lawyers Shall Not Pay For Client Referrals; Purported \"Leads\" Offered by Marketing Companies May Be Disguised Referrals","topics":["lead-generators","fee-sharing","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Lawyers may pay per lead but not per client retained, and 'leads' sold with high retention rates or very high prices are really paid referrals, which are banned.","text":"Lawyers may pay per lead but not per client retained, and 'leads' sold with high retention rates or very high prices are really paid referrals, which are banned.","whatToDo":"Before buying leads, check the price, the vendor's 'retention' claims and the contract; if you are really paying for signed clients, do not buy.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3(d)","5.4(a)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/06/n210624k.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers must consider factors that differentiate between a payment \"per lead\" and a payment \"per client,\" beyond the mere labels used.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-06-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising and Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (joint), CAA Opinion 47 / ACPE Opinion 741","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/06/n210624k.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers must consider factors that differentiate between a payment \"per lead\" and a payment \"per client,\" beyond the mere labels used."}],"note":"Opinion reaffirms CAA Opinion 43 (2011) on pay-per-lead."},{"id":"nj-upl-58-acpe-740","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (joint)","number":"UPL Opinion 58 / ACPE Opinion 740","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-06-21","dateNote":"issued 2021-06-21; published 2021-06-24","title":"Non-Legal Companies That Offer Legal Services to Customers Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law; Lawyers Who Provide Legal Services to the Company's Customers Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A company that sells flat-fee legal help and matches customers with lawyers practices law without a license; lawyers who take its cases break the ethics rules.","text":"A company that sells flat-fee legal help and matches customers with lawyers practices law without a license; lawyers who take its cases break the ethics rules.","whatToDo":"Do not take matters from companies that contract with the customer for legal services and then hand the case to you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.5(a)(2)","5.4(a)","7.3(e)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/06/n210624j.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"lawyers who provide legal services to customers of such companies are assisting the company in the unauthorized practice of law","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-06-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (joint), UPL Opinion 58 / ACPE Opinion 740","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/06/n210624j.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"lawyers who provide legal services to customers of such companies are assisting the company in the unauthorized practice of law"}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2021-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2021-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-06-11","dateNote":null,"title":"Competitive Keyword Online Advertising","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"A lawyer may not buy another lawyer's or firm's name as a keyword for online ads.","text":"A lawyer may not buy another lawyer's or firm's name as a keyword for online ads.","whatToDo":"Remove competitor lawyer and firm names from your paid search keyword lists.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","8.4(a)","8.4(c)","8.4(h)"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Adv.-Op.-2021-04-FInal.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may not purchase the name of another lawyer or law firm for use in competitive keyword online advertising.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-06-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2021-04","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Adv.-Op.-2021-04-FInal.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may not purchase the name of another lawyer or law firm for use in competitive keyword online advertising."}],"note":null},{"id":"oh-bpc-2021-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2021-05","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-06-11","dateNote":null,"title":"Communication of a Lawyer Specialization in a Field of Law Not Designated by the Supreme Court","topics":["specialist-claims"],"researchTopics":["specialist-claims"],"holding":"A lawyer could claim to be a specialist only in a field the Supreme Court of Ohio designated; the Board marks this not current after the 2024 Rule 7.4 amendment.","text":"A lawyer could claim to be a specialist only in a field the Supreme Court of Ohio designated; the Board marks this not current after the 2024 Rule 7.4 amendment.","whatToDo":"Check current Ohio Rule 7.4 before claiming a specialty; do not rely on this opinion.","opinionStatus":"modified","statusNote":"Marked 'Not Current' on the Board's status list due to amendment to Prof.Cond.R. 7.4 effective April 15, 2024.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.4"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Adv.-Op.-2021-05-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A communication by a lawyer that he or she is a specialist in a field of law not designated by the Supreme Court is misleading.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-06-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2021-05","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Adv.-Op.-2021-05-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A communication by a lawyer that he or she is a specialist in a field of law not designated by the Supreme Court is misleading."}],"note":"Status set to 'modified' because the Board labels it Not Current (rule changed), not formally withdrawn."},{"id":"fl-flbar-21-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"21-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-06-10","dateNote":null,"title":"[Responding to negative online reviews posted by non-clients]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"When a non-client posts a negative review, the lawyer may say the poster is not a client and the review is inaccurate, without revealing client information.","text":"When a non-client posts a negative review, the lawyer may say the poster is not a client and the review is inaccurate, without revealing client information.","whatToDo":"If a stranger reviews you, you may say they were never your client; do not discuss any real client matter.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-1.6","4-1.6(c)"],"url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2021/12/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-21-1.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"If accurate, the lawyer may state that the person who made the post is not a current client or former client.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-06-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Professional Ethics Committee, 21-1","url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2021/12/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-21-1.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"If accurate, the lawyer may state that the person who made the post is not a current client or former client."}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-caa-awards-reminder-2021","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2021-05-05","dateNote":"Document Date May 5, 2021; published May 10, 2021","title":"Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising Reminder: Advertising Awards, Honors, and Accolades That Compare a Lawyer's Services to Other Lawyers' Services","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"Lawyers may advertise awards like Super Lawyers only if the issuer vetted them, with the methodology, issuer name and the Supreme Court 'not approved' disclaimer.","text":"Lawyers may advertise awards like Super Lawyers only if the issuer vetted them, with the methodology, issuer name and the Supreme Court 'not approved' disclaimer.","whatToDo":"Check that each badge comes from a vetted selection (not pay, membership or votes) and put the methodology, issuer name and Supreme Court disclaimer right next to it.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found; CAA Opinion 48 (2022) later supplemented Opinion 42 on the same subject (not read, see gaps)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)(3)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/05/n210510a.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Factors such as the payment of money for the issuance of the award; membership in the organization that will issue the award","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-05-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising, None","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2021/05/n210510a.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Factors such as the payment of money for the issuance of the award; membership in the organization that will issue the award"}],"note":"Notice to the Bar, not a numbered opinion. Restates and expands a May 2016 reminder."},{"id":"il-isba-2104","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"21-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-05","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Paying a referral fee to an out-of-state lawyer","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"An Illinois lawyer may share a fee with an out-of-state lawyer who referred a personal injury case if the deal follows Illinois rules and the other state's rules.","text":"An Illinois lawyer may share a fee with an out-of-state lawyer who referred a personal injury case if the deal follows Illinois rules and the other state's rules.","whatToDo":"When splitting a fee with a referring out-of-state lawyer, meet Illinois Rule 1.5(e) and the other state's fee-division rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5(c)","1.5(e)","1.5(f)","1.5(g)"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2104","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may enter into a fee-sharing agreement with an out-of-state lawyer who refers a personal injury case to the Illinois lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 21-04","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2104","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may enter into a fee-sharing agreement with an out-of-state lawyer who refers a personal injury case to the Illinois lawyer"}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-21-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"21-02","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-04-15","dateNote":null,"title":"[Firm names under amended Rule 7.1]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Under Utah's new Rule 7.1, a firm may use a trade name, even with a departed lawyer's name, as long as the name is not false or misleading.","text":"Under Utah's new Rule 7.1, a firm may use a trade name, even with a departed lawyer's name, as long as the name is not false or misleading.","whatToDo":"You may keep a well-known firm name after a founder leaves or retires, but change it if that lawyer starts practicing elsewhere nearby or in the same field.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 7.1","Rule 7.1(a)(1)"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/21-02.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The key concept in the amended Rule 7.1 is that communications regarding a lawyer's services must not be false or misleading.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-04-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 21-02","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/21-02.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The key concept in the amended Rule 7.1 is that communications regarding a lawyer's services must not be false or misleading."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1220","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1220","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-04-06","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Falsely advertising a partnership among law firms","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Separate firms may not form a PLLC and advertise as members of one \"Law Group,\" because the name would falsely suggest they practice together.","text":"Separate firms may not form a PLLC and advertise as members of one \"Law Group,\" because the name would falsely suggest they practice together.","whatToDo":"Do not market separate firms under a shared group name unless they really practice together.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(h)","7.1(c)(2)","7.5(b) & (c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1220/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Separate and independent law firms may not form a PLLC and advertise themselves as members of “ABC Law Group PLLC”","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-04-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1220","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1220/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Separate and independent law firms may not form a PLLC and advertise themselves as members of “ABC Law Group PLLC”"}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2021-196","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2021-196","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-02","dateNote":"Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2021.","title":"Rule 7.3 Solicitation of Clients","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may mail truthful flyers to building owners and call them, but may not email someone who already asked not to be contacted.","text":"A lawyer may mail truthful flyers to building owners and call them, but may not email someone who already asked not to be contacted.","whatToDo":"Stop contacting any prospect who says no, by any channel, and keep mailers truthful.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on OSB opinions table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2021-196.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"No, it is not permissible for Lawyer to email Owner A.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2021-196","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2021-196.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"No, it is not permissible for Lawyer to email Owner A."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-02","dateNote":"Revised 2021 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2021; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Cross-Referrals, Office Sharing with Nonlawyer","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not agree to send clients to a trust company in exchange for the company recommending the lawyer; simply sharing office space with a CPA is fine.","text":"A lawyer may not agree to send clients to a trust company in exchange for the company recommending the lawyer; simply sharing office space with a CPA is fine.","whatToDo":"Do not trade client referrals with a non-lawyer business on a quid-pro-quo basis.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2021 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(b)","5.4(e)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The quid pro quo nature of Lawyer A’s above-described arrangement would clearly violate these provisions.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-2","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The quid pro quo nature of Lawyer A’s above-described arrangement would clearly violate these provisions."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-02","dateNote":"Revised 2021 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2021; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Disseminating Information through the Media or through Speeches","topics":["advertising-general","social-media"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","social-media"],"holding":"A lawyer may write columns, answer reader questions, appear on radio or TV and give talks if nothing is misleading and the lawyer does not pay for the exposure.","text":"A lawyer may write columns, answer reader questions, appear on radio or TV and give talks if nothing is misleading and the lawyer does not pay for the exposure.","whatToDo":"Media columns and talks are fine; keep them accurate and do not pay for placement as if it were free publicity.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2021 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2(b)","8.4(a)(3)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-3.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Is the above-described conduct consistent with rules of professional conduct on providing information on legal services?","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-3","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-3.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Is the above-described conduct consistent with rules of professional conduct on providing information on legal services?"}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-73","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-73","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-02","dateNote":"Revised 2021 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2021; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Acceptance of Referrals","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may accept referrals from friends and clients and may send a small thank-you gift, but not one that was promised or expected in return for referrals.","text":"A lawyer may accept referrals from friends and clients and may send a small thank-you gift, but not one that was promised or expected in return for referrals.","whatToDo":"Send only token thank-you gifts after a referral, never as a promised reward.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2021 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(a)","7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-73.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A gift is prohibited if offered or given in consideration of any promise, agreement or understanding that such a gift would be forthcoming","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-73","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-73.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A gift is prohibited if offered or given in consideration of any promise, agreement or understanding that such a gift would be forthcoming"}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-175","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-175","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-02","dateNote":"Revised 2021 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2021; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Lawyer Membership in Business-Referral Clubs","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join a business networking club whose rules make giving referrals a condition of membership.","text":"A lawyer may not join a business networking club whose rules make giving referrals a condition of membership.","whatToDo":"Do not join referral clubs that require you to give or follow up on referrals to keep your seat.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2021 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(b)","5.4(e)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-175.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Participation in the activities of the Association in accordance with its stated policies would violate both of those rules.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-175","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-175.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Participation in the activities of the Association in accordance with its stated policies would violate both of those rules."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1217","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1217","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-01-15","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Law firm name after a partner leaves","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may keep a former partner’s name when the partner leaves for non-legal work or becomes \"Of Counsel,\" unless the facts would make it misleading.","text":"A firm may keep a former partner’s name when the partner leaves for non-legal work or becomes \"Of Counsel,\" unless the facts would make it misleading.","whatToDo":"Before keeping a departed partner’s name, check that it will not mislead clients.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":[],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1217/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may continue to use the name of a former partner in the firm name where the partner leaves the firm for non-legal","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-01-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1217","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1217/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may continue to use the name of a former partner in the firm name where the partner leaves the firm for non-legal"}],"note":"No rules line shown in the posted digest."},{"id":"ca-sdcba-2021-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"2021-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-01-14","dateNote":null,"title":"[Networking group vs. lawyer referral service]","topics":["fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join a networking group that caps lawyer seats, bars other groups and pressures referrals, because it acts as an unlicensed referral service.","text":"A lawyer may not join a networking group that caps lawyer seats, bars other groups and pressures referrals, because it acts as an unlicensed referral service.","whatToDo":"Skip referral clubs that require a quota of referrals or give you an exclusive seat; ordinary networking groups are fine.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on SDCBA site; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(e)","7.2(b)","7.3","Bus. & Prof. Code 6155"],"url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1714198","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not be a member of a networking group that (1) limits the number of lawyer members","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-01-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, 2021-1","url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1714198","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not be a member of a networking group that (1) limits the number of lawyer members"}],"note":null},{"id":"aba-496","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"ABA","jurisdictionKey":"aba","jurisdictionName":"American Bar Association","fips":null,"body":"American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","number":"496","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-01-13","dateNote":null,"title":"Responding to Online Criticism","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal client information to answer a bad online review; a review alone does not trigger self-defense, so stay silent or reply without client details.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal client information to answer a bad online review; a review alone does not trigger self-defense, so stay silent or reply without client details.","whatToDo":"Do not reply to negative reviews with any client details; either stay silent, ask the site to remove false posts, or post a short reply inviting private contact.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"americanbar.org returned HTTP 403, so the ABA's own listing could not be checked for later changes; the Colorado Bar Association page (2026-10-25) lists it as current ABA guidance that disagrees with CBA Formal Op. 136","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(b)(5)"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/CBA/Ethics22221/aba-formal-opinion-496.pdf?ver=2021-02-22-123525-717&timestamp=1614022496445","sourceKind":"secondary","quote":"As a best practice, lawyers should consider not responding to a negative post or review, because doing so may draw more attention to it","status":"S","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-01-13","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 496","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/CBA/Ethics22221/aba-formal-opinion-496.pdf?ver=2021-02-22-123525-717&timestamp=1614022496445","kind":"secondary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"As a best practice, lawyers should consider not responding to a negative post or review, because doing so may draw more attention to it"}],"note":"Full text of the ABA opinion read from a copy hosted by the Colorado Bar Association (linked from cobar.org Formal Ethics Opinions page next to CBA Op. 136). americanbar.org returned HTTP 403 to fetch.py, so the ABA's own copy was not read; evidence S because the host is not the ABA."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1213","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1213","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021-01-11","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Lawyer paying for recommendation","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join an online matching service that vouches for the lawyer and recommends him as the \"best lawyer\" for the person.","text":"A lawyer may not join an online matching service that vouches for the lawyer and recommends him as the \"best lawyer\" for the person.","whatToDo":"Do not pay services that tell people you are the best lawyer for them.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","7.1(a)","7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1213/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not participate in an internet lawyer-client matching service that vouches for the lawyer’s credentials, competence and effectiveness","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021-01-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1213","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1213/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not participate in an internet lawyer-client matching service that vouches for the lawyer’s credentials, competence and effectiveness"}],"note":null},{"id":"sc-scbar-21-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"21-01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2021","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Paying an annual fee to be listed as an \"identified\" closing-lawyer provider on bank loan forms]","topics":["fee-sharing","lawyer-platforms"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay a flat $249 yearly fee to be listed as an identified service provider on banks’ loan forms, as a reasonable cost of advertising.","text":"A lawyer may pay a flat $249 yearly fee to be listed as an identified service provider on banks’ loan forms, as a reasonable cost of advertising.","whatToDo":"Flat-fee listings in provider networks are fine; avoid paying per referral or per closing.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-21-01/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyer A may pay the fee and participate in Company’s network of legal service providers and be “identified” as a possible service provider","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2021","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 21-01","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-21-01/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyer A may pay the fee and participate in Company’s network of legal service providers and be “identified” as a possible service provider"}],"note":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2020-12","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2020-12","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-12-11","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyer or Law Firm Use of Service Mark","topics":["trade-names","specialist-claims"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names","specialist-claims"],"holding":"A firm may register and advertise a service mark if not misleading, but may not use 'pro' or 'pros' in it and must pair it with the firm's legal name.","text":"A firm may register and advertise a service mark if not misleading, but may not use 'pro' or 'pros' in it and must pair it with the firm's legal name.","whatToDo":"Use a service mark only next to your firm's formal name, and keep \"pro\" or \"pros\" out of it.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.4","7.5"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Adv.-Op.-2020-12-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may register and use a service mark in communications and advertising.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-12-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2020-12","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Adv.-Op.-2020-12-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer or law firm may register and use a service mark in communications and advertising."}],"note":null},{"id":"nh-nhba-ethics-corner-online-presence","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NH","jurisdictionKey":"new-hampshire","jurisdictionName":"New Hampshire","fips":"33","body":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"Ethics Corner: Online Presence and Client Confidences","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-11-23","dateNote":"web publication date from page metadata; no board-submission date shown","title":"Online Presence and Client Confidences","topics":["social-media","reviews","websites"],"researchTopics":["social-media","online-reviews","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"Lawyers may market on social media under the ad rules, should note posts are not legal advice, and may not reveal confidences when answering negative reviews.","text":"Lawyers may market on social media under the ad rules, should note posts are not legal advice, and may not reveal confidences when answering negative reviews.","whatToDo":"Add a 'not legal advice / no attorney-client relationship' disclaimer to posts and ads, and answer bad reviews without any client details.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the NHBA ethics list","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","1.9","1.18","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/online-presence-and-client-confidences/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"In your advertising and social media interactions, you would be prudent to include a disclaimer that the advertisement does not convey legal advice or create","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-11-23","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee, Ethics Corner: Online Presence and Client Confidences","url":"https://www.nhbar.org/online-presence-and-client-confidences/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"In your advertising and social media interactions, you would be prudent to include a disclaimer that the advertisement does not convey legal advice or create"}],"note":"Ethics Corner commentary (general guidance), not a numbered Ethics Committee opinion."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1208","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1208","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-11-16","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Solicitation and Referral of Real Estate Matters by Real Estate Broker Employed by Lawyer as Paralegal","topics":["solicitation","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may take closings referred by her paralegal-broker if the lawyer has no stake in the commission, handles conflicts, and keeps the paralegal from improper solicitation.","text":"A lawyer may take closings referred by her paralegal-broker if the lawyer has no stake in the commission, handles conflicts, and keeps the paralegal from improper solicitation.","whatToDo":"Make sure staff who refer clients to you follow the solicitation rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7(a)(2)","1.7(b)","5.3(a)","5.4(c)","7.3(a)(1)","7.3(b)","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1208/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The lawyer must also ensure that the paralegal’s conduct complies with Rule 7.3 governing attorney solicitation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-11-16","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1208","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1208/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The lawyer must also ensure that the paralegal’s conduct complies with Rule 7.3 governing attorney solicitation"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1207","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1207","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-11-10","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Firm names; trade names","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"After the June 2020 rule change, a New York firm may use a trade name with no lawyer's name, and may keep a retired name partner, if not misleading.","text":"After the June 2020 rule change, a New York firm may use a trade name with no lawyer's name, and may keep a retired name partner, if not misleading.","whatToDo":"You may use a trade name for your firm, as long as it is not false or misleading.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.5(b)","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1207/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may practice in New York using a name that does not include the name of any lawyer currently or formerly practicing in","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-11-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1207","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1207/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may practice in New York using a name that does not include the name of any lawyer currently or formerly practicing in"}],"note":"Interprets Rule 7.5(b) as amended by the Appellate Divisions’ Joint Order of June 24, 2020."},{"id":"ak-akbar-2020-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"AK","jurisdictionKey":"alaska","jurisdictionName":"Alaska","fips":"02","body":"Alaska Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by Board of Governors)","number":"2020-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-10-26","dateNote":"Adopted date per Alaska Bar chronological list.","title":"What Are Counsel's Ethical Duties Regarding Publicizing Client Recoveries?","topics":["testimonials","past-results","client-lists-case-results"],"researchTopics":["testimonials-endorsements","past-results","client-lists-case-results"],"holding":"A personal-injury lawyer may run ads with client testimonials that state recovery amounts only if the clients give informed consent.","text":"A personal-injury lawyer may run ads with client testimonials that state recovery amounts only if the clients give informed consent.","whatToDo":"Get informed client consent before any ad or testimonial mentions a client's recovery amount.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on Alaska Bar adopted opinions list; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.8(b)","1.9(c)","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Testimonials disclosing amounts of recoveries are consistent with the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct only if the clients provide informed consent.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-10-26","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Alaska Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by Board of Governors), 2020-2","url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Testimonials disclosing amounts of recoveries are consistent with the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct only if the clients provide informed consent."}],"note":null},{"id":"fl-flbar-20-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"20-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-10-09","dateNote":null,"title":"[Responding to a negative online review by a former client]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal client information when answering a negative online review, but may say the review is not fair or accurate and that the lawyer cannot respond fully.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal client information when answering a negative online review, but may say the review is not fair or accurate and that the lawyer cannot respond fully.","whatToDo":"Answer bad reviews only with a short, general statement and never reveal client details.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-1.6(c)"],"url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2020/11/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-20-1.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may respond with a general statement that the lawyer is not permitted to respond as the lawyer would wish, but that the online review is","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-10-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Professional Ethics Committee, 20-1","url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2020/11/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-20-1.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may respond with a general statement that the lawyer is not permitted to respond as the lawyer would wish, but that the online review is"}],"note":"The PDF heading reads \"OPINION 20-01\"; the Bar index lists it as Opinion 20-1."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2020-11","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2020-11","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-10-02","dateNote":null,"title":"Trade Name Used as Law Firm Name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may use a trade name, but not one that implies results, speed, or a link to a government, nonprofit or charity.","text":"A firm may use a trade name, but not one that implies results, speed, or a link to a government, nonprofit or charity.","whatToDo":"If you use a trade name, make sure it does not promise results or suggest a government or charity connection.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Adv.-Op.-2020-11-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A trade name that implies certain results, expediency, or a connection to a governmental, nonprofit, or charitable organization is inherently false or misleading","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-10-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2020-11","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Adv.-Op.-2020-11-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A trade name that implies certain results, expediency, or a connection to a governmental, nonprofit, or charitable organization is inherently false or misleading"}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-689","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"689","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-09","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Using a nonlawyer employee to staff an advertising booth after hail storms]","topics":["solicitation","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A staffer may run a booth with signs and brochures, but neither lawyer nor staffer may start conversations about hiring the firm, and no bonus per new client.","text":"A staffer may run a booth with signs and brochures, but neither lawyer nor staffer may start conversations about hiring the firm, and no bonus per new client.","whatToDo":"At events, let people come to you, train staff not to start the pitch, and never pay staff per signed client.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.03","7.03(a)","7.03(b)","7.06(a)","5.05(b)"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-689/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The lawyer may not pay the nonlawyer staff any bonus or additional compensation for enlisting one or more clients as a result of the nonlawyer's","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 689","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-689/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The lawyer may not pay the nonlawyer staff any bonus or additional compensation for enlisting one or more clients as a result of the nonlawyer's"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2020-06","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2020-06","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-08-07","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyer Departing Law Firm","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A firm and a departing lawyer may notify affected clients, and the notice may say the lawyer or firm is willing to keep handling the matter.","text":"A firm and a departing lawyer may notify affected clients, and the notice may say the lawyer or firm is willing to keep handling the matter.","whatToDo":"When a lawyer leaves, send clients a neutral notice of the departure and respect the client's choice of counsel.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 98-05"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.3","1.4","1.15","1.16","7.1","7.3"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Adv.-Op.-2020-06-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The notice may indicate the availability and willingness of the lawyer or law firm to continue to provide legal services to the client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-08-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2020-06","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Adv.-Op.-2020-06-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The notice may indicate the availability and willingness of the lawyer or law firm to continue to provide legal services to the client"}],"note":"Withdraws Adv. Op. 98-05."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2020-07","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2020-07","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-08-07","dateNote":null,"title":"Use of Surname of Retiring or Inactive Lawyer in Law Firm Name and Letterhead","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may keep a retired or inactive lawyer's surname in its name in a line of succession, and list that lawyer on letterhead with the registration status.","text":"A firm may keep a retired or inactive lawyer's surname in its name in a line of succession, and list that lawyer on letterhead with the registration status.","whatToDo":"If you keep a retired partner's name on letterhead, label the person as retired or inactive.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 91-18"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Adv.-Op.-2020-07-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may continue to include in the firm name, in a continuing line of succession, the surname of a retiring lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-08-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2020-07","url":"https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Adv.-Op.-2020-07-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may continue to include in the firm name, in a continuing line of succession, the surname of a retiring lawyer"}],"note":"Withdraws Adv. Op. 91-18 and modifies Adv. Op. 96-3."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1199","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1199","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-07-15","dateNote":"date shown on the NYSBA posting; no separate opinion date printed in the text","title":"Attorney website to assist pro se litigants; marketing of legal services","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may run a separate automated self-help filing website if it gives no individual advice and does not advertise the law firm; lawyer review brings in all lawyer rules.","text":"A lawyer may run a separate automated self-help filing website if it gives no individual advice and does not advertise the law firm; lawyer review brings in all lawyer rules.","whatToDo":"Keep any automated self-help website separate from your firm’s marketing, or treat it as part of your law practice.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.7","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1199/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"establish a separate business through a website to assist pro se litigants with filings through an automated system","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-07-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1199","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1199/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"establish a separate business through a website to assist pro se litigants with filings through an automated system"}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1193","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1193","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-06-08","dateNote":"opinion date 06/08/2020 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Law firm name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Under the pre-June 2020 rule, New York-only lawyers could not use a trade name, but could truthfully advertise ties to an out-of-state firm that uses one.","text":"Under the pre-June 2020 rule, New York-only lawyers could not use a trade name, but could truthfully advertise ties to an out-of-state firm that uses one.","whatToDo":"Check the later Opinion 1207 before relying on this; trade names became allowed in New York after June 2020.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"The trade-name ban applied former Rule 7.5(b); the Appellate Divisions amended Rule 7.5(b) on June 24, 2020, and N.Y. State 1207 (2020) says trade names are now allowed if not misleading. No formal withdrawal notice found on the NYSBA page.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.5","8.5"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1193/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may truthfully advertise its affiliation with an out-of-state firm that uses a trade name permitted in the other jurisdiction","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-06-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1193","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1193/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may truthfully advertise its affiliation with an out-of-state firm that uses a trade name permitted in the other jurisdiction"}],"note":null},{"id":"il-isba-2004","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"20-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-05","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Named partner in full-time nonlegal employment and no longer practicing law.","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm name may not imply a partnership that does not exist or mislead the public, and generally should not include a lawyer who no longer practices.","text":"A firm name may not imply a partnership that does not exist or mislead the public, and generally should not include a lawyer who no longer practices.","whatToDo":"Take a non-practicing lawyer's name out of the firm name and do not imply a partnership you do not have.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2004","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm's name may not imply a partnership when none exists.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 20-04","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2004","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm's name may not imply a partnership when none exists."}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-caa-46","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising","number":"CAA Opinion 46","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-04-01","dateNote":"issued 2020-04-01; published 2020-04-15","title":"Geo-Fencing, Geo-Targeting, and Similar Electronic Advertising Techniques","topics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"Geo-targeted digital ads are allowed, but not at hospitals, funeral homes, police stations, courthouses or accident sites, not aimed at disaster victims, and not as forced-view pop-ups.","text":"Geo-targeted digital ads are allowed, but not at hospitals, funeral homes, police stations, courthouses or accident sites, not aimed at disaster victims, and not as forced-view pop-ups.","whatToDo":"Exclude sensitive locations from geo-fence campaigns and run only ads that sit beside page content, never ones users must sit through.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3(b)(1)","7.3(b)(4)","7.3(b)(5)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2020/04/n200415b.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"These areas include, but are not limited to, emergency rooms, hospitals, urgent care centers, funeral homes, police stations, courthouses, and accident sites.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-04-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising, CAA Opinion 46","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2020/04/n200415b.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"These areas include, but are not limited to, emergency rooms, hospitals, urgent care centers, funeral homes, police stations, courthouses, and accident sites."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1184","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1184","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-03-10","dateNote":"opinion date 03/10/2020 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Freelance or per diem attorney; trade names; maintenance of bank accounts and records; conflicts","topics":["trade-names","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A lawyer marketing freelance per diem work to other lawyers may use the name and domain \"Surname Esquire.\"","text":"A lawyer marketing freelance per diem work to other lawyers may use the name and domain \"Surname Esquire.\"","whatToDo":"A freelance name that uses your own surname is fine; keep it truthful.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","1.1","1.4(a)(3)","1.6","1.7","1.8","1.9","1.10(e)","1.15(d)","3.3(f)(1)","4.1","4.2","7.1","7.4","7.5"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1184/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may use the name and domain name Surname Esquire","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-03-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1184","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1184/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may use the name and domain name Surname Esquire"}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-685","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"685","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020-01","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Asking clients for positive online reviews and star ratings]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may ask clients to post good online reviews, but must not encourage false statements and should try to fix any that appear.","text":"A lawyer may ask clients to post good online reviews, but must not encourage false statements and should try to fix any that appear.","whatToDo":"Ask clients for honest reviews, give nothing in return, and act to correct or remove any false review you learn about.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.02(a)","8.04(a)(3)","1.05"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-685/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a Texas lawyer may ask current and former clients to post favorable star ratings and online reviews about the lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 685","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-685/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a Texas lawyer may ask current and former clients to post favorable star ratings and online reviews about the lawyer"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection. Facts assume the lawyer gives nothing of value for reviews; the opinion does not address reviews from vendors, employees, friends or family."},{"id":"ny-nycla-754-2020","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York County Lawyers Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"754-2020","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020","dateNote":"only the year is shown (opinion number 754-2020); no exact date on the page","title":"Ethical Obligations when Lawyers Work Remotely","topics":["advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A New York firm may work fully remotely; a firm that keeps a physical New York office may list it as its principal law office address under Rule 7.1(h).","text":"A New York firm may work fully remotely; a firm that keeps a physical New York office may list it as its principal law office address under Rule 7.1(h).","whatToDo":"If your firm works remotely, keep a qualifying New York office address and use it as the principal office address in your ads and website.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the NYCLA site; predates NY advertising rule amendments eff. 2026-06-01 (Rule 7.1(h) may have changed; see N.Y. State 1301 on virtual office addresses)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","5.1","5.3","7.1(h)"],"url":"https://www.nycla.org/resource/ethics-opinion/nycla-op-754-2020-ethical-obligations-when-lawyers-work-remotely/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Opinion 2019-2 does not suggest that there is any ethical impropriety if a law firm that currently maintains a physical office space in New York","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"New York County Lawyers Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 754-2020","url":"https://www.nycla.org/resource/ethics-opinion/nycla-op-754-2020-ethical-obligations-when-lawyers-work-remotely/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Opinion 2019-2 does not suggest that there is any ethical impropriety if a law firm that currently maintains a physical office space in New York"}],"note":"Mainly a remote-work opinion; included only for its short Rule 7.1(h) principal-office-address discussion (para. 2). The opinion's own rules line lists 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3; 7.1(h) is discussed in the text. Borderline for scope; drop if the dataset wants advertising-focused opinions only."},{"id":"sc-scbar-20-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"20-01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Competitive keyword advertising using competitors’ names]","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"A lawyer may buy other lawyers’ and firms’ names as search keywords, but the ads must follow all ad rules and must not be derogatory or uncivil.","text":"A lawyer may buy other lawyers’ and firms’ names as search keywords, but the ads must follow all ad rules and must not be derogatory or uncivil.","whatToDo":"You may bid on competitor names, but keep the ad text truthful and never imply you are the competitor or knock them.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-20-01/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may use internet competitive keyword advertising that includes the names of competing lawyers and law firms.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 20-01","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-20-01/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may use internet competitive keyword advertising that includes the names of competing lawyers and law firms."}],"note":"Reaches the opposite result from North Carolina 2010 FEO 14. Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"sc-scbar-20-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"20-03","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Use of retired lawyers’ names in a successor firm name]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A new firm that is a bona fide successor to the old firm may keep the names of retired lawyers in its firm name.","text":"A new firm that is a bona fide successor to the old firm may keep the names of retired lawyers in its firm name.","whatToDo":"Keep retired partners’ names in the firm name only if the new firm is a true successor of the old one.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5(a)","7.5(e)"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-20-03/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyer D may use the names of retired lawyers A and B in the new firm name, formed subsequent to B’s retirement.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 20-03","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-20-03/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyer D may use the names of retired lawyers A and B in the new firm name, formed subsequent to B’s retirement."}],"note":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"mo-olec-2020-21","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2020-21","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020","dateNote":null,"title":"requirement to disclose Of Counsel association","topics":["advertising-general","websites"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"When a lawyer is Of Counsel to two firms, both firms' ads, websites, letterhead and the lawyer's cards and online profiles must disclose both Of Counsel ties.","text":"When a lawyer is Of Counsel to two firms, both firms' ads, websites, letterhead and the lawyer's cards and online profiles must disclose both Of Counsel ties.","whatToDo":"If a lawyer is Of Counsel to more than one firm, show every Of Counsel relationship on all ads, website listings, letterhead and profiles.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.1","4-7.5"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2020-21/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Attorney’s business cards, online profiles, and other materials must disclose that Attorney is associated with both firms in Of Counsel relationships","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2020-21","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2020-21/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Attorney’s business cards, online profiles, and other materials must disclose that Attorney is associated with both firms in Of Counsel relationships"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Only the year (2020) is shown as the adoption date."},{"id":"mo-olec-2020-06","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2020-06","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2020","dateNote":null,"title":"duties upon leaving a law firm","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"When a lawyer leaves, the firm should promptly update its ads, website and firm name so they do not mislead about who is with the firm.","text":"When a lawyer leaves, the firm should promptly update its ads, website and firm name so they do not mislead about who is with the firm.","whatToDo":"When a lawyer leaves, update your website, ads and firm name right away.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.1","4-7.2","4-7.3","4-7.4","4-7.5","4-1.15","4-1.16","6.01"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2020-06/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Firm lawyers should promptly update advertising materials, the firm’s website, the firm’s name if necessary, and other communications","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2020","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2020-2026","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2020-06","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2020-06/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Firm lawyers should promptly update advertising materials, the firm’s website, the firm’s name if necessary, and other communications"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Only the year (2020) is shown. Advertising point is one part of a broader departing-lawyer opinion."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2018-feo-8","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2018 FEO 8","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-10-25","dateNote":"adopted date; opinion is numbered 2018","title":"Advertising Inclusion in Self-Laudatory List or Organization","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise being on a \"best lawyers\" type list or in a laudatory organization, subject to conditions set out in the opinion.","text":"A lawyer may advertise being on a \"best lawyers\" type list or in a laudatory organization, subject to conditions set out in the opinion.","whatToDo":"Advertise awards only when they meet the opinion’s conditions, such as legitimate standards and clear identification of who gave the award.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; editor’s note says 2007 FEO 14 was withdrawn on October 25, 2019 upon adoption of this opinion","supersedes":["NC 2007 FEO 14"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.1(a)","7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-8/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may advertise the lawyer’s inclusion in a list or membership in an organization that bestows a laudatory designation on the lawyer subject to","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-10-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2018 FEO 8","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-8/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may advertise the lawyer’s inclusion in a list or membership in an organization that bestows a laudatory designation on the lawyer subject to"}],"note":"Pre-2020 by number but adopted October 2019; controlling North Carolina opinion on awards. The exact conditions were read only in summary form; read the full opinion before relying on them."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2019-feo-6","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2019 FEO 6","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-10-25","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Offering Incentive to Engage with Law Practice’s Social Networking Sites","topics":["social-media","fee-sharing","testimonials"],"researchTopics":["social-media","referral-marketing-fees","testimonials-endorsements"],"holding":"A lawyer may not offer prize entries for \"likes\" or follows when the platform shows that activity to other users, because it pays for what looks like a recommendation.","text":"A lawyer may not offer prize entries for \"likes\" or follows when the platform shows that activity to other users, because it pays for what looks like a recommendation.","whatToDo":"Do not run giveaways that reward people for liking, following, or sharing your firm’s social media.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2019-formal-ethics-opinion-6/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"offering an incentive to engage with a law practice’s social media account is misleading and constitutes an improper exchange for a recommendation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-10-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2019 FEO 6","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2019-formal-ethics-opinion-6/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"offering an incentive to engage with a law practice’s social media account is misleading and constitutes an improper exchange for a recommendation"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark on social media incentives."},{"id":"ri-eap-2019-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2019-04","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-10-10","dateNote":null,"title":"[Paying a digital marketing agency per title order referred by a mortgage broker]","topics":["fee-sharing","lead-generators","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","lead-generation"],"holding":"A lawyer may not pay a marketing agency $200 for each title order a mortgage broker sends, because that is really paying for the broker's ads in exchange for referrals.","text":"A lawyer may not pay a marketing agency $200 for each title order a mortgage broker sends, because that is really paying for the broker's ads in exchange for referrals.","whatToDo":"Never pay a marketer or third party per referral you receive from someone else; pay only for your own advertising.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)","1.5(a)"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-04.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The inquiring attorney effectively pays the mortgage broker's costs of advertising in exchange for title orders.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-10-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2019-04","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-04.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The inquiring attorney effectively pays the mortgage broker's costs of advertising in exchange for title orders."}],"note":null},{"id":"va-vsb-leo-1872","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics","number":"1872","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-10-02","dateNote":"PDF shows 'Committee Opinion March 29, 2013' and 'Supreme Court Approved October 2, 2019'","title":"Virtual Law Office and Use of Executive Office Suites","topics":["advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may use a virtual or shared office, but any office listed in ads must be where the lawyer really works, not a front to look bigger or local.","text":"A lawyer may use a virtual or shared office, but any office listed in ads must be where the lawyer really works, not a front to look bigger or local.","whatToDo":"List only office addresses where you actually meet clients and do legal work; do not list rented suites just to appear in more towns.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; listed in the VSB LEO index","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6(a)","1.6(d)","5.1(a)","5.1(b)","5.3(a)","5.3(b)","7.1"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1872.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not list alternative or rented office spaces in public communications for the purpose of misleading prospective clients","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-10-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, 1872","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1872.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not list alternative or rented office spaces in public communications for the purpose of misleading prospective clients"}],"note":"Opinion mostly covers confidentiality and supervision; only the office-listing part is about marketing. The 2013 committee date and 2019 court approval date are both printed on the PDF."},{"id":"va-vsb-leo-1750","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics","number":"LEO 1750","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-10-02","dateNote":"latest Supreme Court of Virginia approval shown; first issued as a committee compendium opinion March 20, 2001, revised 2006 and 2008, Court-approved April 20, 2018 and October 2, 2019","title":"Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (compendium opinion)","topics":["advertising-general","testimonials","past-results","awards-ratings","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","testimonials-endorsements","past-results","awards-ratings"],"holding":"This compendium covers actors in ads, \"no recovery, no fee\", third-party praise, case results, referral services, \"Best Lawyers\" listings, and \"specialist\" claims under Virginia’s misleading-ads rule.","text":"This compendium covers actors in ads, \"no recovery, no fee\", third-party praise, case results, referral services, \"Best Lawyers\" listings, and \"specialist\" claims under Virginia’s misleading-ads rule.","whatToDo":"Check every ad against LEO 1750; for example, disclose when an actor plays a lawyer or client.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.3(d)"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1750.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"failing to disclose that the actor is not truly an employee or member of the law firm, when the language used implies otherwise, is misleading","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-10-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, LEO 1750","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1750.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"failing to disclose that the actor is not truly an employee or member of the law firm, when the language used implies otherwise, is misleading"}],"note":"Pre-2020 by approval date but still the controlling Virginia advertising compendium; the Bar’s ethics page says obsolete Legal Advertising Opinions were withdrawn in 2018 or folded into LEO 1750. Topics specialist-claims, domain-trade-names and referral-marketing-fees are also covered in sections not quoted here."},{"id":"ri-eap-2019-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2019-03","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-09-12","dateNote":null,"title":"[Paying a for-profit internet \"lawyer referral service\" per lead]","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms","pay-per-lead","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A lawyer may not pay a for-profit online company that calls itself a 'Lawyer Referral Service' for leads, because only not-for-profit bar-approved referral services may be paid.","text":"A lawyer may not pay a for-profit online company that calls itself a 'Lawyer Referral Service' for leads, because only not-for-profit bar-approved referral services may be paid.","whatToDo":"Before paying an online lead company, check that it is not acting as a for-profit referral service; Rhode Island allows paying only bar-approved nonprofit services.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-03.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer who participates in an internet lawyer referral service that is not a not-for-profit lawyer referral service violates Rule 7.2(c).","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-09-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2019-03","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-03.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer who participates in an internet lawyer referral service that is not a not-for-profit lawyer referral service violates Rule 7.2(c)."}],"note":"The Panel expressly did not decide the exclusivity or flat-fee-per-lead questions."},{"id":"nj-guideline-1-2019","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising)","number":"Attorney Advertising Guideline 1 (amended)","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2019-09-10","dateNote":"amendment dated 2019-09-10, effective immediately; notice published 2019-10-22","title":"Amendments to Attorney Advertising Guideline 1","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"Every lawyer ad must include contact information, which may now be a website URL as well as an address, phone, fax or email.","text":"Every lawyer ad must include contact information, which may now be a website URL as well as an address, phone, fax or email.","whatToDo":"Make sure every ad shows at least one contact point for the firm, such as a phone number or website URL.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Attorney Advertising Guideline 1"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2019/10/n191023a.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"In any advertisement by an attorney or law firm, the advertisement shall include contact information for the attorney or law firm.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-09-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising), Attorney Advertising Guideline 1 (amended)","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2019/10/n191023a.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"In any advertisement by an attorney or law firm, the advertisement shall include contact information for the attorney or law firm."}],"note":null},{"id":"nj-acpe-735","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"ACPE Opinion 735","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-06-25","dateNote":"issued 2019-06-25; notice page shows Document Date July 25, 2019 and Publish Date Aug. 6, 2019","title":"Lawyer's Use of Internet Search Engine Keyword Advertising","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"A lawyer may buy a competitor's name as a keyword, but may not hyperlink the competitor's name so it secretly sends users to the lawyer's own site.","text":"A lawyer may buy a competitor's name as a keyword, but may not hyperlink the competitor's name so it secretly sends users to the lawyer's own site.","whatToDo":"Never redirect searches for another lawyer's name or URL to your site; see the 2025 court ruling for the landing-page disclaimer now required.","opinionStatus":"modified","statusNote":"modified by In re Opinion No. 735, 260 N.J. 482 (2025-05-22) to require a landing-page disclaimer; see ACPE 735 Supplement (2025-12-08)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.4","7.1","8.4(c)","8.4(d)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2019/07/n190806c.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Redirecting a user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own website is purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher for the other lawyer's website.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-06-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ACPE Opinion 735","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2019/07/n190806c.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Redirecting a user from the competitor's website to the lawyer's own website is purposeful conduct intended to deceive the searcher for the other lawyer's website."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-comfed-social-media-guidelines-2019","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section (Social Media and New Communication Technologies Committee)","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2019-06-20","dateNote":"Updated April 29, 2019; release date June 20, 2019 (both shown on the PDF)","title":"Social Media Ethics Guidelines of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association","topics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["social-media","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer's business or personal social media profile may fall under the advertising and solicitation rules when it is used to talk about the lawyer's services.","text":"A lawyer's business or personal social media profile may fall under the advertising and solicitation rules when it is used to talk about the lawyer's services.","whatToDo":"Treat any social media profile where you mention your services as advertising and follow the ad and solicitation rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"2019 edition is the latest edition linked on the Section page as of 2026-10-25; no later edition found. Predates NY advertising rule amendments eff. 2026-06-01.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0","7.1","7.3","7.4","7.5","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NYSBA-Social-Media-Ethics-Guidelines-Final-6-20-19.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may be subject to attorney advertising and solicitation rules. If the lawyer communicates concerning her services using her social media profile","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-06-20","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section (Social Media and New Communication Technologies Committee), None","url":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NYSBA-Social-Media-Ethics-Guidelines-Final-6-20-19.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may be subject to attorney advertising and solicitation rules. If the lawyer communicates concerning her services using her social media profile"}],"note":"Section guidelines, not an ethics-committee opinion; the PDF states they do not represent NYSBA views unless adopted by the House of Delegates or Executive Committee. Quote is from Guideline No. 2.A. Earlier editions (2014, 2015) are also linked on the Section page."},{"id":"ri-eap-2019-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2019-01","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-06-18","dateNote":null,"title":"[In-person solicitation of neighborhood business owners]","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may visit businesses in person to seek work, since Rule 7.3 exempts business organizations, but the handout is an ad that must be filed with disciplinary counsel.","text":"A lawyer may visit businesses in person to seek work, since Rule 7.3 exempts business organizations, but the handout is an ad that must be filed with disciplinary counsel.","whatToDo":"You may pitch local businesses face to face; file a copy of any handout with disciplinary counsel as Rule 7.2 requires.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3(a)","7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Rule 7.3 , which prohibits in-person contact with prospective clients for solicitation of professional employment, contains an exception for business organizations.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-06-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2019-01","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2019-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Rule 7.3 , which prohibits in-person contact with prospective clients for solicitation of professional employment, contains an exception for business organizations."}],"note":null},{"id":"nh-nhba-ethics-corner-texting-part-v","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NH","jurisdictionKey":"new-hampshire","jurisdictionName":"New Hampshire","fips":"33","body":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"Ethics Corner: Lawyers and Texting, Part V","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-05-06","dateNote":"submitted to the NHBA Board of Governors at its May 6, 2019 meeting; web page dated 2019-10-15","title":"Lawyers and Texting: Part V - Ethics of Advertising via Text Messaging","topics":["texting","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["texting","solicitation"],"holding":"New Hampshire's rules do not appear to bar text-message ads or solicitations that follow the written-ad rules, name the lawyer and office, and say 'advertising' when soliciting.","text":"New Hampshire's rules do not appear to bar text-message ads or solicitations that follow the written-ad rules, name the lawyer and office, and say 'advertising' when soliciting.","whatToDo":"Put your name, firm and address in every marketing text, label solicitation texts 'advertising', and avoid unwanted or costly texts.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the NHBA ethics list","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3(a)","7.3(c)"],"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/ethics-texting-part-v","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the lawyer should include a disclosure that the text message is \"advertising\" in any message issued as a direct solicitation of a prospective client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-05-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee, Ethics Corner: Lawyers and Texting, Part V","url":"https://www.nhbar.org/ethics-texting-part-v","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the lawyer should include a disclosure that the text message is \"advertising\" in any message issued as a direct solicitation of a prospective client"}],"note":"Ethics Corner commentary (general guidance), not a numbered Ethics Committee opinion."},{"id":"co-cba-136","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CO","jurisdictionKey":"colorado","jurisdictionName":"Colorado","fips":"08","body":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"136","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-03-18","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"A Lawyer's Response to a Client's Online Public Commentary Concerning the Lawyer","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A Colorado lawyer may answer a negative review, but may reveal client information only if the review creates a real controversy, and only what is reasonably needed.","text":"A Colorado lawyer may answer a negative review, but may reveal client information only if the review creates a real controversy, and only what is reasonably needed.","whatToDo":"Answer bad reviews briefly without client details; the safest reply says you cannot discuss the matter and disagree with the post.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; the bar's index notes that ABA Formal Op. 496 (2021) disagrees with it","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Colo. RPC 1.6","Colo. RPC 1.6(b)(6)","Colo. RPC 1.8(b)","Colo. RPC 1.9","Colo. RPC 1.18"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/committees/1/20190311%20Online%20Reviews.pdf?ver=2019-10-08-133503-317","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may respond if the online criticism creates a \"controversy\" between the lawyer and the client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-03-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee, 136","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/committees/1/20190311%20Online%20Reviews.pdf?ver=2019-10-08-133503-317","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may respond if the online criticism creates a \"controversy\" between the lawyer and the client"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: widely cited as the minority view on online-review responses."},{"id":"ky-kba-e-448","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"KY","jurisdictionKey":"kentucky","jurisdictionName":"Kentucky","fips":"21","body":"Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by the Board of Governors)","number":"E-448","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-03-14","dateNote":null,"title":"Proposed self-defense opinion","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal client information to answer a former client's online criticism; usually ignore it or post a short reply citing confidentiality.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal client information to answer a former client's online criticism; usually ignore it or post a short reply citing confidentiality.","whatToDo":"Do not argue the facts with an unhappy client online; ignore the review or post a short note that you cannot discuss client matters.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(b)(3)"],"url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-448.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"In most instances the best advice is to ignore the criticism","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-03-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by the Board of Governors), E-448","url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-448.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"In most instances the best advice is to ignore the criticism"}],"note":"Issued 2019; included as Kentucky's controlling opinion on responding to negative online reviews."},{"id":"ky-kba-e-447","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"KY","jurisdictionKey":"kentucky","jurisdictionName":"Kentucky","fips":"21","body":"Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by the Board of Governors)","number":"E-447","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019-01-18","dateNote":null,"title":"Disclosure of Information on Social Media","topics":["social-media","client-lists-case-results"],"researchTopics":["social-media","client-lists-case-results"],"holding":"Without client consent, a lawyer may not reveal a client's identity or case information in a blog or social media post, even if it is in a public record.","text":"Without client consent, a lawyer may not reveal a client's identity or case information in a blog or social media post, even if it is in a public record.","whatToDo":"Get written client consent before naming a client or describing a case in any blog or social post.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.9(c)(2)"],"url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-447.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"there is no justification for revealing information, without consent, about past or present clients in a blog or other social media","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019-01-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by the Board of Governors), E-447","url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-447.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"there is no justification for revealing information, without consent, about past or present clients in a blog or other social media"}],"note":"Issued 2019; included as Kentucky's controlling opinion on client information in lawyer blogs and social media."},{"id":"ca-coprac-2019-199","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC)","number":"2019-199","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019","dateNote":"Only the year is shown (opinion number and State Bar index); no month/day printed on the PDF.","title":"Attorney Directory and Rating Websites","topics":["lawyer-platforms","reviews","testimonials","awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","online-reviews","testimonials-endorsements","awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer is not responsible for a directory profile until adopting or using it; then it must be truthful, with no fake reviews and care over misleading testimonials.","text":"A lawyer is not responsible for a directory profile until adopting or using it; then it must be truthful, with no fake reviews and care over misleading testimonials.","whatToDo":"If you claim or link to a directory profile (Avvo-type), check it for false content, never have friends or family post reviews, and add a disclaimer near testimonials.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on State Bar ethics opinions page; no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/CAL-2019-199-%5B12-0003%5D.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"When an attorney uses the profile to market the attorney’s practice, the profile becomes a communication about the attorney’s services","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), 2019-199","url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/CAL-2019-199-%5B12-0003%5D.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"When an attorney uses the profile to market the attorney’s practice, the profile becomes a communication about the attorney’s services"}],"note":null},{"id":"ca-sdcba-2019-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"2019-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019","dateNote":"Year from the number; the PDF filename indicates a December 2018 draft.","title":"[Marketing program offering brief limited-scope phone consultations]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","lead-generators","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees","lead-generation"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join a for-profit program that collects a consumer's flat fee and keeps a 'marketing fee'; that is fee-sharing and an uncertified referral service.","text":"A lawyer may not join a for-profit program that collects a consumer's flat fee and keeps a 'marketing fee'; that is fee-sharing and an uncertified referral service.","whatToDo":"Before joining any online consult platform, confirm it is a State Bar-certified referral service or that you pay only a flat advertising cost, never a cut of the legal fee.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on SDCBA site; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.2","7.3","1.7","1.8.6(c)","Bus. & Prof. Code 6152","Bus. & Prof. Code 6155"],"url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1388671","sourceKind":"official","quote":"California lawyers who participate in a plan like Company’s violate Rule 5.4.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, 2019-2","url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1388671","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"California lawyers who participate in a plan like Company’s violate Rule 5.4."}],"note":null},{"id":"ne-lac-19-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NE","jurisdictionKey":"nebraska","jurisdictionName":"Nebraska","fips":"31","body":"Nebraska Lawyers' Advisory Committee","number":"19-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2019","dateNote":"only the year is shown on the opinion list and PDF","title":"[Trade name or service mark without professional entity designation]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A law firm may use a trade name without its LLC or LLP designation if it is not misleading and the firm's full legal name appears in the same materials.","text":"A law firm may use a trade name without its LLC or LLP designation if it is not misleading and the firm's full legal name appears in the same materials.","whatToDo":"If you brand with a trade name, show your full legal firm name (with LLC or LLP) somewhere in the same website, letterhead or ad.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["§ 3-507.1","§ 3-507.5"],"url":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/19-02.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm may use a trade name which does not specifically include the law firm’s professional entity designation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2019","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Nebraska Lawyers' Advisory Committee, 19-02","url":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/19-02.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm may use a trade name which does not specifically include the law firm’s professional entity designation"}],"note":"Pre-2020; the only post-2015 Nebraska opinion on advertising/firm names found in the committee list."},{"id":"fl-flbar-18-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors","number":"18-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-12-14","dateNote":null,"title":"[Permissible payments to for-profit qualifying providers (lawyer referral / matching services)]","topics":["lead-generators","fee-sharing","lawyer-platforms","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","referral-marketing-fees","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay a lead or matching service a fixed fee per period, click or referral, but not a percentage of fees or a flat fee per case accepted.","text":"A lawyer may pay a lead or matching service a fixed fee per period, click or referral, but not a percentage of fees or a flat fee per case accepted.","whatToDo":"Pay lead and matching services only fixed fees not tied to whether you are hired or how much the case is worth.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-5.4","4-7.22"],"url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-18-1-2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge for each time a consumer views information about a specific lawyer, commonly referred to as “pay-per-click”","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-12-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors, 18-1","url":"https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-18-1-2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge for each time a consumer views information about a specific lawyer, commonly referred to as “pay-per-click”"}],"note":"Issued by the Board of Governors on inquiries; landmark pre-2020 opinion still listed on the Bar site. Pre-2020 included as the controlling Florida word on lead-generation payments."},{"id":"nj-caa-45","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising","number":"CAA Opinion 45","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-11-08","dateNote":null,"title":"Attorney Advertisement Claiming \"Expertise\" and \"Specialization\" in an Area of Law (Superseding Opinion 7)","topics":["specialist-claims","awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["specialist-claims","awards-ratings"],"holding":"Lawyers may say they 'specialize' or have 'expertise' if provable, but only certified lawyers may say 'expert'; Super Lawyers-type listings do not prove expertise.","text":"Lawyers may say they 'specialize' or have 'expertise' if provable, but only certified lawyers may say 'expert'; Super Lawyers-type listings do not prove expertise.","whatToDo":"Use 'specialize' or 'expertise' only if you can document the education and experience behind it; drop 'expert' unless you are certified.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":["CAA Opinion 7"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2018/11/n181108b.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Only lawyers who are certified by the Supreme Court or an organization approved by the American Bar Association may call themselves \"experts.\"","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-11-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising, CAA Opinion 45","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2018/11/n181108b.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Only lawyers who are certified by the Supreme Court or an organization approved by the American Bar Association may call themselves \"experts.\""}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark; still the controlling NJ opinion on specialist/expert claims."},{"id":"va-vsb-leo-1885","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics","number":"LEO 1885","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-11-08","dateNote":"date approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia","title":"Ethical considerations regarding a lawyer’s participation in an online attorney-client matching service","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may list fixed-fee services on a matching site, but may not let it hold the client's advance fee or pay it a share tied to the legal fee.","text":"A lawyer may list fixed-fee services on a matching site, but may not let it hold the client's advance fee or pay it a share tied to the legal fee.","whatToDo":"Keep client fees in your own trust account and pay matching sites only reasonable advertising costs not based on your fee.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5(a)","1.15","1.16(d)","5.4","7.3(d)"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1885.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer must not participate in a program whereby the lawyer pays a for-profit business entity a portion of the legal fee charged to the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-11-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, LEO 1885","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1885.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer must not participate in a program whereby the lawyer pays a for-profit business entity a portion of the legal fee charged to the"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark on Avvo Legal Services-type matching services; approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2018-feo-7","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2018 FEO 7","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-10-26","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Online Review Solicitation Service","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may use a paid service that asks clients for reviews and posts only positive ones, if clients give informed consent before their contact details are shared.","text":"A lawyer may use a paid service that asks clients for reviews and posts only positive ones, if clients give informed consent before their contact details are shared.","whatToDo":"Get each client’s informed consent before giving a review service their contact details, and explain how the service works.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","7.2(b)","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-7/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may participate in an online service for soliciting client reviews that collects and posts positive reviews to increase the lawyer’s ranking on internet","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-10-26","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2018 FEO 7","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-7/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may participate in an online service for soliciting client reviews that collects and posts positive reviews to increase the lawyer’s ranking on internet"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark on review-solicitation services. Since this opinion, the FTC rule on consumer reviews (16 CFR Part 465, in force October 21, 2024) bans some forms of review suppression, and Google's review policy bars selectively soliciting positive reviews; check both before using a review-gating service."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2018-06","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2018-06","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-10-05","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyer Communication of Juris Doctor Degree, Other Academic Degrees, and Professional Licenses","topics":["specialist-claims","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["specialist-claims","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may list other earned degrees or licenses in law-practice ads if truthful, but may not use them to imply a legal specialty.","text":"A lawyer may list other earned degrees or licenses in law-practice ads if truthful, but may not use them to imply a legal specialty.","whatToDo":"List other degrees or licenses only if true, and never use them to suggest you are a certified specialist.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 94-3"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.7","7.1","7.4","7.5"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Adv.-Op.-2018-06-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not use other earned academic degrees or professional licenses to state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-10-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2018-06","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Adv.-Op.-2018-06-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not use other earned academic degrees or professional licenses to state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist"}],"note":"Pre-2020. Withdraws Adv. Op. 94-3."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2018-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2018-05","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-08-03","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyer and Firm Website Domain Names","topics":["trade-names","specialist-claims","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names","specialist-claims"],"holding":"A domain name is advertising; it may not imply a specialty the lawyer lacks or name a city where the firm has no active office.","text":"A domain name is advertising; it may not imply a specialty the lawyer lacks or name a city where the firm has no active office.","whatToDo":"Pick domain names that do not suggest certification or a city where you have no real office.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.4","7.5"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Adv.Op_.-2018-05a-Final.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The registration and publication of a domain name is a form of advertising and a professional designation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-08-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2018-05","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Adv.Op_.-2018-05a-Final.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The registration and publication of a domain name is a form of advertising and a professional designation"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark; still the Ohio opinion on domain names."},{"id":"tx-pec-674","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"674","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-08","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Direct solicitation by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit law firm offering below-market flat fees]","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A nonprofit law firm may not directly solicit people who are not its members for paid work, even at low flat fees, because any fee is still pecuniary gain.","text":"A nonprofit law firm may not directly solicit people who are not its members for paid work, even at low flat fees, because any fee is still pecuniary gain.","whatToDo":"Do not make in-person or live calls to strangers for paid work, even if you are a nonprofit charging low fees.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.03(a)"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-674/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Providing legal services on a reduced fee, below-market, or flat-rate fee basis is no indication that a significant motive for the solicitation is not for","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 674","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-674/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Providing legal services on a reduced fee, below-market, or flat-rate fee basis is no indication that a significant motive for the solicitation is not for"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2018-feo-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2018 FEO 1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-07-27","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Participation in Website Directories and Rating Systems that include Third Party Reviews","topics":["lawyer-platforms","reviews","awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","online-reviews","awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may join online directories and rating systems if the profile information is truthful and not misleading, and the lawyer is responsible for profile content.","text":"A lawyer may join online directories and rating systems if the profile information is truthful and not misleading, and the lawyer is responsible for profile content.","whatToDo":"Claim and check your directory profiles, and fix anything untrue or misleading.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Opinion explains when a lawyer may participate in an online rating system, and a lawyer’s professional responsibility for the content posted on a profile on","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-07-27","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2018 FEO 1","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2018-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Opinion explains when a lawyer may participate in an online rating system, and a lawyer’s professional responsibility for the content posted on a profile on"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark on directories and ratings."},{"id":"ct-cba-18-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CT","jurisdictionKey":"connecticut","jurisdictionName":"Connecticut","fips":"09","body":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Informal Opinion 18-05","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-07-18","dateNote":null,"title":"Nominal Value Gift for Client Referrals","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A small after-the-fact thank-you gift, like a logo coffee mug, to someone who referred a client is not payment for a referral.","text":"A small after-the-fact thank-you gift, like a logo coffee mug, to someone who referred a client is not payment for a referral.","whatToDo":"Keep referral thank-yous to low-cost branded items given after the referral; never offer fee discounts or cash for referrals.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the CBA informal opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)","5.4(c)"],"url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2018-opinions/informal-opinion-18-05-nominal-value-gift-for-client-referrals.pdf?sfvrsn=fe39b786_6","sourceKind":"official","quote":"We conclude that giving a gift of such nominal value does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-07-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, Informal Opinion 18-05","url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2018-opinions/informal-opinion-18-05-nominal-value-gift-for-client-referrals.pdf?sfvrsn=fe39b786_6","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"We conclude that giving a gift of such nominal value does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct."}],"note":null},{"id":"wv-ldb-leo-2018-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WV","jurisdictionKey":"west-virginia","jurisdictionName":"West Virginia","fips":"54","body":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board","number":"L.E.O. 2018-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-06-22","dateNote":"approved June 22, 2018; entered June 27, 2018","title":"Participation in Attorney-Client Matching Services","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Paying an online matching service a \"marketing fee\" that is due only when the legal work is finished is an improper referral and endorsement fee and fee-split with nonlawyers.","text":"Paying an online matching service a \"marketing fee\" that is due only when the legal work is finished is an improper referral and endorsement fee and fee-split with nonlawyers.","whatToDo":"Do not join matching sites that take a fee tied to finishing the client’s matter or that hold client fees.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.1","7.2","7.3","1.18"],"url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7d997e72c481bf5fca.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":null,"status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-06-22","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, L.E.O. 2018-01","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7d997e72c481bf5fca.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":null}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark on Avvo Legal Services-type platforms. The official copy on the ODC website is an image-only scan with no text layer, so checkquote.py cannot verify any quote; quote is null. Text was read visually from the page images of the official PDF."},{"id":"or-osb-2005-168","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-168","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-06","dateNote":"Revised 2018 version approved by the Board of Governors, June 2018; original 2005.","title":"Lawyer-Owned Lawyer-Referral Service","topics":["fee-sharing","lawyer-platforms","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A lawyer may own and help manage a for-profit lawyer-referral service with conditions, but the service may not give legal advice to callers while screening them.","text":"A lawyer may own and help manage a for-profit lawyer-referral service with conditions, but the service may not give legal advice to callers while screening them.","whatToDo":"If you own a referral service, keep its screeners from giving legal advice and keep it separate from your own practice.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2018 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.5","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-168.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Because a referral service itself is not licensed to practice law, it may not provide legal advice to the public.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-168","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-168.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Because a referral service itself is not licensed to practice law, it may not provide legal advice to the public."}],"note":null},{"id":"ca-lacba-530","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"Los Angeles County Bar Association, Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee","number":"530","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-05-23","dateNote":null,"title":"Law Firm Using Former Partner's or Shareholder's Name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A law corporation or LLP may keep the name of a lawyer who is no longer an owner but still works at the firm; that is not misleading.","text":"A law corporation or LLP may keep the name of a lawyer who is no longer an owner but still works at the firm; that is not misleading.","whatToDo":"You may keep a former partner's name in the firm name only if that lawyer still works at the firm.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on LACBA site; no notice of change found on the bar site. Decided under former rule 1-400.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 1-400","former 1-400 Standard (7)"],"url":"https://lacba.org/docDownload/2010559","sourceKind":"official","quote":"It is not misleading to the public, and therefore is not a violation of the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-05-23","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Los Angeles County Bar Association, Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee, 530","url":"https://lacba.org/docDownload/2010559","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"It is not misleading to the public, and therefore is not a violation of the"}],"note":"Pre-2020 included as the controlling county-bar opinion on firm names with former partners."},{"id":"ca-sdcba-2018-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"2018-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-05-08","dateNote":"Adopted date shown on the opinion.","title":"[Marketing to mass disaster victims through targeted social media ads]","topics":["social-media","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["social-media","solicitation"],"holding":"Lawyers may run geographically targeted social-media ads to disaster victims soon after a disaster if the ads are truthful and include required information; California has no waiting-period rule.","text":"Lawyers may run geographically targeted social-media ads to disaster victims soon after a disaster if the ads are truthful and include required information; California has no waiting-period rule.","whatToDo":"If you run geo-targeted ads after a disaster, keep them truthful, label them as ads, and never promise results.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on SDCBA site; SDCBA notes opinions cite rules in effect when written. Decided under former rule 1-400.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 1-400(A)","former 1-400(D)(5)","former 1-400 Standard (3)"],"url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1020567","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers may use geographically targeted advertisements to market their legal services on general social media sites so long as the advertisements are truthful","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-05-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, 2018-1","url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1020567","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers may use geographically targeted advertisements to market their legal services on general social media sites so long as the advertisements are truthful"}],"note":null},{"id":"co-cba-89","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CO","jurisdictionKey":"colorado","jurisdictionName":"Colorado","fips":"08","body":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"89","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-03-12","dateNote":"adopted September 21, 1991; revised and reissued March 12, 2018","title":"Office Sharing and Virtual Offices","topics":["trade-names","advertising-general","office-address"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names","advertising-general"],"holding":"Office-sharing lawyers must not use names, signs or listings that suggest one firm, and virtual-office lawyers must not imply they staff an office they rarely use.","text":"Office-sharing lawyers must not use names, signs or listings that suggest one firm, and virtual-office lawyers must not imply they staff an office they rarely use.","whatToDo":"If you share space or use a virtual office, make your name, sign, letterhead and listings show you are separate and say how the office is actually used.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Colo. RPC 7.1(a)","Colo. RPC 7.5(a)","Colo. RPC 7.5(d)"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_89_2011.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Colo. RPC 7.5(a) extends the prohibition against false and misleading names to letterhead or other professional designations.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-03-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee, 89","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_89_2011.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Colo. RPC 7.5(a) extends the prohibition against false and misleading names to letterhead or other professional designations."}],"note":"Source PDF on the bar site carries a '2011' file name but its text shows the 2018 revision."},{"id":"tn-bpr-2018-f-165","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TN","jurisdictionKey":"tennessee","jurisdictionName":"Tennessee","fips":"47","body":"Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee","number":"2018-F-165","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-03-09","dateNote":null,"title":"Legal Services Websites","topics":["lawyer-platforms"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A site where clients post legal jobs and lawyers pay fixed membership and per-quote fees appears to comply if it recommends no lawyer and takes no case-linked fees.","text":"A site where clients post legal jobs and lawyers pay fixed membership and per-quote fees appears to comply if it recommends no lawyer and takes no case-linked fees.","whatToDo":"Use bid or marketplace sites only if you pay flat fees, the site does not pick or vouch for you, and your listing is marked as advertising.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(c)","5.4","7.3","7.4","1.5"],"url":"https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/2018-f-165-legal-services-websites","sourceKind":"official","quote":"appears to comply with the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct if it is operated in accordance with the conditions and guidelines set forth in this","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-03-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 2018-F-165","url":"https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/2018-f-165-legal-services-websites","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"appears to comply with the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct if it is operated in accordance with the conditions and guidelines set forth in this"}],"note":"Issued 2018; Tennessee's only formal opinion on online lawyer-marketplace platforms. Conditions are adopted from an Ohio letter of guidance."},{"id":"tx-pec-672","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"672","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-03","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Letters to employees suggesting they may have claims like the lawyer's clients]","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A letter or email to non-clients that claims to seek information is a written solicitation if it is really meant to get hired.","text":"A letter or email to non-clients that claims to seek information is a written solicitation if it is really meant to get hired.","whatToDo":"Treat 'fact-finding' letters to possible claimants as solicitations and follow the written-solicitation rules for them.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.05(b)","7.05(d)","7.05(f)"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-672/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer's written, electronic or digital communication with a nonclient that purports to seek information may be treated as a written solicitation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 672","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-672/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer's written, electronic or digital communication with a nonclient that purports to seek information may be treated as a written solicitation"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"ut-eaoc-18-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"18-01","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018-01-08","dateNote":null,"title":"[Firm name including a part-time legislator]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may keep a part-time legislator's name if the lawyer practices regularly out of session, but not if the lawyer has mostly stopped practicing.","text":"A firm may keep a part-time legislator's name if the lawyer practices regularly out of session, but not if the lawyer has mostly stopped practicing.","whatToDo":"Keep a lawyer's name in your firm name only while that lawyer still practices regularly with the firm.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Op. 22-02 (2022) lists 18-01 as still applicable under the false-or-misleading standard; former Rule 7.5 it cites was deleted in 2020","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former Rule 7.5(a)","former Rule 7.5(c)","Rule 7.1"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2018-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"When a lawyer is no longer actively and regularly practicing law, including her name in the firm name may be a misleading communication","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018-01-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 18-01","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2018-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"When a lawyer is no longer actively and regularly practicing law, including her name in the firm name may be a misleading communication"}],"note":null},{"id":"sc-scbar-18-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"18-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Chiropractor paying part of a lawyer’s advertising costs in exchange for client referrals]","topics":["fee-sharing","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","advertising-general"],"holding":"A chiropractor may help pay for a lawyer’s ads in exchange for referrals, if the lawyer discloses the relationship and gets each affected client’s informed consent in writing.","text":"A chiropractor may help pay for a lawyer’s ads in exchange for referrals, if the lawyer discloses the relationship and gets each affected client’s informed consent in writing.","whatToDo":"If another business helps pay for your ads, tell clients about the deal and get their written consent before referring them.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7","7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-18-02/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyer may accept financial assistance from the chiropractor to facilitate the dissemination of advertisements on behalf of the Lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 18-02","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-18-02/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyer may accept financial assistance from the chiropractor to facilitate the dissemination of advertisements on behalf of the Lawyer"}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as the controlling South Carolina opinion on non-lawyer co-funding of ads. Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"ca-sdcba-2018-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"2018-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018","dateNote":"Only the year (from the number) is shown.","title":"[Calling prospective clients referred by a registered lawyer referral service]","topics":["solicitation","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may phone a person referred by a State Bar-registered lawyer referral service, because the person started the contact by asking the service for a lawyer.","text":"A lawyer may phone a person referred by a State Bar-registered lawyer referral service, because the person started the contact by asking the service for a lawyer.","whatToDo":"It is fine to call people a certified referral service sends you; do not cold-call people who have not asked for help.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on SDCBA site; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 1-400(B)(1)","7.3"],"url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1221635","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers may directly contact prospective clients they have no previous relationship with when the clients initiate the communication by contacting a registered lawyer referral service","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"San Diego County Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, 2018-2","url":"https://www.sdcba.org/docDownload/1221635","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers may directly contact prospective clients they have no previous relationship with when the clients initiate the communication by contacting a registered lawyer referral service"}],"note":null},{"id":"mo-olec-2018-13","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2018-13","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018","dateNote":null,"title":"lawyer providing educational seminars; solicitation; misconduct through acts of another","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may teach a seminar, but promoting the lawyer's services or handing out discount certificates there is banned in-person solicitation, even if a nonlawyer co-presenter does it.","text":"A lawyer may teach a seminar, but promoting the lawyer's services or handing out discount certificates there is banned in-person solicitation, even if a nonlawyer co-presenter does it.","whatToDo":"At seminars you present, have information available on request but do not pitch your services or hand out discounts; follow up only by mail that meets Rule 4-7.3.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.3","4-8.4(a)"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2018-13/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The promotion of Attorney’s services or offering of a discount certificate at the seminar would constitute in-person solicitation prohibited by Rule","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2018-13","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2018-13/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The promotion of Attorney’s services or offering of a discount certificate at the seminar would constitute in-person solicitation prohibited by Rule"}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Only the year (2018) is shown. Pre-2020 opinion included because the brief asks for every 2015-2026 Missouri advertising/solicitation opinion."},{"id":"mo-olec-2018-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MO","jurisdictionKey":"missouri","jurisdictionName":"Missouri","fips":"29","body":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri)","number":"Informal Opinion 2018-05","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2018","dateNote":null,"title":"referral fees not permitted; division of fees with another lawyer","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A Missouri lawyer may not pay a referral fee to the lawyer who sent a case, but may split the fee if Rule 4-1.5(e) is met.","text":"A Missouri lawyer may not pay a referral fee to the lawyer who sent a case, but may split the fee if Rule 4-1.5(e) is met.","whatToDo":"Do not pay pure referral fees; split fees with a referring lawyer only by proportion of work or joint responsibility, with the client's written consent.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.2(c)","4-1.5(e)"],"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2018-05/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Attorney A may not pay a referral fee to Attorney B.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2018","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Office of Legal Ethics Counsel (Supreme Court of Missouri), Informal Opinion 2018-05","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2018-05/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Attorney A may not pay a referral fee to Attorney B."}],"note":"Published informal opinion summary; advisory and not binding per the site. Only the year (2018) is shown. Pre-2020 opinion included per the brief (every 2015-2026 Missouri opinion on referrals)."},{"id":"fl-flbar-bog-avvo-advisor-2017","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"FL","jurisdictionKey":"florida","jurisdictionName":"Florida","fips":"12","body":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (on recommendation of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics)","number":null,"opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-12-08","dateNote":"Board action at its \"December 8 meeting\"; reported in The Florida Bar News dated January 1, 2018","title":"[Avvo Advisor is a lawyer referral service under Bar rules]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"The Board decided that Avvo Advisor, which charged a $39 consult and kept a $10 marketing fee, is a lawyer referral service under Florida's rules.","text":"The Board decided that Avvo Advisor, which charged a $39 consult and kept a $10 marketing fee, is a lawyer referral service under Florida's rules.","whatToDo":"Before joining a platform that sends you clients for a fee, check whether it complies with Florida rules for referral services or qualifying providers.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"Avvo Advisor has since been discontinued; Florida later replaced \"lawyer referral service\" with \"qualifying provider\" in Rule 4-7.22 (see Opinion 18-1). No formal withdrawal found.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["4-7.22"],"url":"https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/bar-tells-avvo-advisor-it-is-a-lawyer-referral-service/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the Avvo Advisor online system for connecting potential clients with questions to lawyers meets the Bar’s definition of a referral service","status":"S","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-12-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (on recommendation of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics), None","url":"https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/bar-tells-avvo-advisor-it-is-a-lawyer-referral-service/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the Avvo Advisor online system for connecting potential clients with questions to lawyers meets the Bar’s definition of a referral service"}],"note":"Board of Governors decision known only from The Florida Bar News report on the Bar site (no separate opinion text found). The year 2017 is inferred from the January 1, 2018 article date; the article does not state the year of the meeting. Pre-2020 landmark on platforms."},{"id":"ut-eaoc-17-06","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"17-06","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-09-27","dateNote":null,"title":"[$99 / Zero Down bankruptcy advertising; post-petition fee contracts]","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"Advertising a '$99' or 'Zero Down' Chapter 7 bankruptcy without more is misleading, because the price leaves out the filing fee and later required work.","text":"Advertising a '$99' or 'Zero Down' Chapter 7 bankruptcy without more is misleading, because the price leaves out the filing fee and later required work.","whatToDo":"If you advertise a low starting price, say clearly what it does not cover, including court fees and later required work.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; cited with approval in Op. 22-04 (2022) as an example of misleading advertising","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 7.1","Rule 1.5","Rule 1.7"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2017-06.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"advertisement of a \"$99\" bankruptcy or a \"Zero Down\" bankruptcy is misleading under Rule 7.1 because the price refers only to the filing of the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-09-27","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 17-06","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2017-06.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"advertisement of a \"$99\" bankruptcy or a \"Zero Down\" bankruptcy is misleading under Rule 7.1 because the price refers only to the filing of the"}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-17-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"17-05","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-09-27","dateNote":null,"title":"[Referral service taking a fee-based cut]","topics":["fee-sharing","lawyer-platforms","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"Under the rules then in force, a service selling fixed-fee legal help and keeping a service-based cut of the lawyer's fee was improper fee-sharing and paid referral.","text":"Under the rules then in force, a service selling fixed-fee legal help and keeping a service-based cut of the lawyer's fee was improper fee-sharing and paid referral.","whatToDo":"Do not join a platform that takes a share of your fee unless it is approved under Utah's current rules and Standing Order No. 15.","opinionStatus":"modified","statusNote":"Op. 22-02 (2022) says such an arrangement might now be permitted if approved under Utah Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 and Rule 5.4","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":["ut-eaoc-22-02"],"rules":["Rule 5.4","Rule 7.2(f)"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2017-05.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The service described above violates Rule 5.4's prohibition on splitting fees with a non-lawyer.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-09-27","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 17-05","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2017-05.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The service described above violates Rule 5.4's prohibition on splitting fees with a non-lawyer."}],"note":null},{"id":"ny-nysba-1132","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1132","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-08-08","dateNote":"opinion date 8/8/17 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Paying nonlawyers for a recommendation or referral","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not pay the Avvo Legal Services marketing fee as it then stood, because part of that fee pays for a recommendation.","text":"A lawyer may not pay the Avvo Legal Services marketing fee as it then stood, because part of that fee pays for a recommendation.","whatToDo":"Before joining any platform, check whether its fee pays it to recommend you; if so, do not join.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","5.4(a)","7.1(a)","7.1(b)(1)","7.1(f)","7.1(h)","7.2(a)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1132/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not pay the current marketing fee to participate in Avvo Legal Services, because the fee includes an improper payment for a recommendation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-08-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1132","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1132/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not pay the current marketing fee to participate in Avvo Legal Services, because the fee includes an improper payment for a recommendation"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: widely cited Avvo opinion; relied on in N.Y. State 1267 (2024)."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1131","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1131","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-08-08","dateNote":"opinion date 8/8/17 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Lead generation; lawyer paying for-profit company for leads","topics":["lead-generators"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay a for-profit website for leads if lawyers are picked by clear mechanical methods, the site recommends no lawyer, and the site follows the ad rules.","text":"A lawyer may pay a for-profit website for leads if lawyers are picked by clear mechanical methods, the site recommends no lawyer, and the site follows the ad rules.","whatToDo":"Use lead services only if they pick lawyers mechanically, never recommend you, and their site follows the ad rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":["ny-nysba-902"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a) & (f)","1.5(g)","5.4","7.1(a), (f) & (h)","7.2(a)","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1131/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may pay a for-profit service for leads to potential clients obtained via a website on which potential clients provide contact information","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-08-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1131","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1131/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may pay a for-profit service for leads to potential clients obtained via a website on which potential clients provide contact information"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: the NYSBA page states it overrules N.Y. State 902 (2012) as to payment of a marketing fee; followed in N.Y. State 1294 (2026)."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2017-feo-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2017 FEO 3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-07-28","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Advertisement with URL and No Other Identifying Information","topics":["advertising-general","trade-names","domain-names","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A billboard need not show the lawyer’s name, firm, or office address if its web address leads to a site where that information is easy to find.","text":"A billboard need not show the lawyer’s name, firm, or office address if its web address leads to a site where that information is easy to find.","whatToDo":"If an ad shows only a web address, make sure the landing page clearly names the responsible lawyer and office address.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2(c)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2017-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a billboard advertisement need not contain the lawyer’s name, firm name, or the firm’s office address if the URL address on the advertisement lands on","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-07-28","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2017 FEO 3","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2017-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a billboard advertisement need not contain the lawyer’s name, firm name, or the firm’s office address if the URL address on the advertisement lands on"}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as the controlling North Carolina opinion on URL-only ads."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1129","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1129","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-07-11","dateNote":"opinion date 7/11/17 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Attorney Newsletters","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A mainly educational newsletter is not an ad, but a newsletter mainly about the firm’s cases, people or wins is an ad and must follow the ad rules.","text":"A mainly educational newsletter is not an ad, but a newsletter mainly about the firm’s cases, people or wins is an ad and must follow the ad rules.","whatToDo":"Keep newsletters educational, or label and handle them as ads if they mostly promote the firm.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a)","1.7(a) & (b)","7.1(a), (f) & (k)","7.3"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1129/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"If the primary purpose of a law firm’s newsletter is educational, it does not constitute an advertisement","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-07-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1129","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1129/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"If the primary purpose of a law firm’s newsletter is educational, it does not constitute an advertisement"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: controlling NYSBA opinion on newsletters as advertising."},{"id":"nj-acpe-732-caa-44-upl-54","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Committee on Attorney Advertising, and Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (joint)","number":"ACPE Joint Opinion 732 / CAA Joint Opinion 44 / UPL Joint Opinion 54","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-06-21","dateNote":"issued 2017-06-21; notice Document Date June 19, 2017","title":"Lawyers Participating in Impermissible Lawyer Referral Services and Providing Legal Services for Unregistered Legal Service Plans - Avvo, LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer, and Similar Companies","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"New Jersey lawyers may not join Avvo's legal-services programs, whose per-matter fee is fee-sharing and a paid referral, or unregistered LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer plans.","text":"New Jersey lawyers may not join Avvo's legal-services programs, whose per-matter fee is fee-sharing and a paid referral, or unregistered LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer plans.","whatToDo":"Do not join platforms that take a cut of each legal fee or run unregistered legal service plans; flat advertising fees are the safe model.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page; cited as good law in CAA 47/ACPE 741 (2021)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","5.4(c)","7.2(c)","7.3(d)","7.3(e)(4)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2017/06/n170621f.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service programs because the programs improperly require the lawyer to share a legal fee with","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-06-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Committee on Attorney Advertising, and Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (joint), ACPE Joint Opinion 732 / CAA Joint Opinion 44 / UPL Joint Opinion 54","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2017/06/n170621f.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service programs because the programs improperly require the lawyer to share a legal fee with"}],"note":null},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2017-feo-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2017 FEO 1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-04-21","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Text Message Advertising","topics":["texting","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["texting","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise through a text-message service that lets the user start a live phone call, if the texts follow the ad rules and other laws.","text":"A lawyer may advertise through a text-message service that lets the user start a live phone call, if the texts follow the ad rules and other laws.","whatToDo":"Text ads are allowed, but keep them truthful and comply with federal and state texting laws.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2017-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"lawyers may advertise through a text message service that allows the user to initiate live telephone communication","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-04-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2017 FEO 1","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2017-formal-ethics-opinion-1/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"lawyers may advertise through a text message service that allows the user to initiate live telephone communication"}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as the controlling North Carolina opinion on texting. Rule references reflect numbering before later North Carolina rule amendments."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2017-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2017-03","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-04-07","dateNote":null,"title":"Solicitation of Professional Employment Via Email","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may solicit clients by email, and may let a referral or advertising service send it, but the lawyer is responsible for its content.","text":"A lawyer may solicit clients by email, and may let a referral or advertising service send it, but the lawyer is responsible for its content.","whatToDo":"If you or a vendor send solicitation emails, review the content yourself and follow the solicitation rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 2004-1"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.3","7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Op_17-003.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may use email to solicit professional employment, subject to the restrictions contained in the Rules of Professional Conduct","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-04-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2017-03","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Op_17-003.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may use email to solicit professional employment, subject to the restrictions contained in the Rules of Professional Conduct"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark. Updates and withdraws Opinion 2004-1."},{"id":"pa-phila-2017-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Philadelphia Bar Association, Professional Guidance Committee","number":"Opinion 2017-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-04","dateNote":null,"title":"A lawyer's right to share legal fees with a referring nonprofit organization whose exclusive purpose is to provide legal services","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A nonprofit whose only purpose is providing legal services counts as a law firm, so lawyers may share fees with it as a referral fee if Rule 1.5 is met.","text":"A nonprofit whose only purpose is providing legal services counts as a law firm, so lawyers may share fees with it as a referral fee if Rule 1.5 is met.","whatToDo":"You may pay a referral share to a nonprofit legal services group that refers cases, but not to for-profit nonlawyer referrers.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the Philadelphia Bar opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(c)","1.5(e)","5.4"],"url":"https://philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBAReadOnly.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/Opinion2017-11.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a nonprofit organization which provides exclusively legal services is considered a \"law firm\" within the Rules and, as such, may receive a referral fee","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Philadelphia Bar Association, Professional Guidance Committee, Opinion 2017-1","url":"https://philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBAReadOnly.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/Opinion2017-11.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a nonprofit organization which provides exclusively legal services is considered a \"law firm\" within the Rules and, as such, may receive a referral fee"}],"note":"Month only on the opinion."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2017-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2017-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017-02-10","dateNote":null,"title":"Advertisement of Contingent Fee Arrangements","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may not advertise \"no fee unless we win\" if the client must repay costs regardless of outcome, unless the ad has a disclaimer explaining that duty.","text":"A lawyer may not advertise \"no fee unless we win\" if the client must repay costs regardless of outcome, unless the ad has a disclaimer explaining that duty.","whatToDo":"If clients repay case costs no matter what, do not say \"no fee unless we win\" without a clear cost-repayment disclaimer.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 98-9"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5","1.8","7.1"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_17-001.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a disclaimer is required in the advertisement that explains the client’s obligations for repayment","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017-02-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2017-1","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_17-001.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a disclaimer is required in the advertisement that explains the client’s obligations for repayment"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark. Withdraws Opinion 98-9."},{"id":"sc-scbar-17-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"17-02","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2017","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Advertising \"Best Lawyers\", \"Super Lawyers\" and similar designations and badges]","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise an award like Best Lawyers only if the standards are objective and disclosed, the date and source shown, and nothing was paid for it.","text":"A lawyer may advertise an award like Best Lawyers only if the standards are objective and disclosed, the date and source shown, and nothing was paid for it.","whatToDo":"Show awards only with the year, the publisher, and a link to the selection standards, and never pay to get the award.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-17-02/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Yes, the lawyer may accept and advertise such a designation or accolade, and utilize any “badges,” symbols, or other marks authorized by the designating entity","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2017","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 17-02","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-17-02/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Yes, the lawyer may accept and advertise such a designation or accolade, and utilize any “badges,” symbols, or other marks authorized by the designating entity"}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as the controlling South Carolina opinion on awards and badges. Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"mi-sbm-ri-375","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MI","jurisdictionKey":"michigan","jurisdictionName":"Michigan","fips":"26","body":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"RI-375","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-12-01","dateNote":null,"title":"[Former judge's use of judicial title or image in public communications]","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A former judge in private practice may not use a judicial title or image that implies current judicial status, though a truthful bio may mention past service.","text":"A former judge in private practice may not use a judicial title or image that implies current judicial status, though a truthful bio may mention past service.","whatToDo":"If a lawyer at your firm is a former judge, say \"former\" or \"retired\" and avoid robe or bench images that suggest a sitting judge.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Page notes MRPC 7.1 was amended effective January 1, 2019 to address former judicial titles; no withdrawal notice found.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.7","7.1","8.4"],"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-375","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may not ethically use a judicial title or image implying a current judicial status when the lawyer is not an actively serving judge","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-12-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, RI-375","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-375","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may not ethically use a judicial title or image implying a current judicial status when the lawyer is not an actively serving judge"}],"note":"Pre-2020."},{"id":"mi-sbm-ri-369","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MI","jurisdictionKey":"michigan","jurisdictionName":"Michigan","fips":"26","body":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"RI-369","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-12-01","dateNote":null,"title":"[Internet domain names and website addresses]","topics":["trade-names","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Domain names and web addresses are public communications about legal services and must not be false or misleading under MRPC 7.1.","text":"Domain names and web addresses are public communications about legal services and must not be false or misleading under MRPC 7.1.","whatToDo":"Choose domain names that are truthful and not misleading.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1"],"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-369","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Internet domain names and website addresses are a form of public communication concerning legal services that must comply with MRPC 7.1.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-12-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, RI-369","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-369","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Internet domain names and website addresses are a form of public communication concerning legal services that must comply with MRPC 7.1."}],"note":"Pre-2020; the Michigan opinion on domain names."},{"id":"dc-dcbar-370","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DC","jurisdictionKey":"district-of-columbia","jurisdictionName":"District of Columbia","fips":"11","body":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"370","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-11","dateNote":"\"Published: November 2016\" shown on the D.C. Bar page; no day given","title":"Social Media I: Marketing and Personal Use","topics":["social-media","reviews","testimonials","specialist-claims"],"researchTopics":["social-media","online-reviews","testimonials-endorsements","specialist-claims"],"holding":"Promotional social media must follow the ethics rules; lawyers must fix false content on pages they control, answer reviews without confidences, and endorse others only truthfully.","text":"Promotional social media must follow the ethics rules; lawyers must fix false content on pages they control, answer reviews without confidences, and endorse others only truthfully.","whatToDo":"Review the social media pages you control, remove false endorsements, and never reveal client secrets when answering reviews.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site (listed on the D.C. Bar Ethics Opinions 210-Present index without a change note)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","1.7","1.18","3.3","5.1","5.3","7.1","8.4","8.5"],"url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-370","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Social media sites, postings or activities that mention, promote or highlight a lawyer or a law firm are subject to and must comply with the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee, 370","url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-370","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Social media sites, postings or activities that mention, promote or highlight a lawyer or a law firm are subject to and must comply with the"}],"note":"Companion Opinion 371 (Social Media II) addresses use of social media in providing legal services, not marketing, and is excluded."},{"id":"pa-pba-2016-300","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee","number":"Formal Opinion 2016-300","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-11","dateNote":null,"title":"Settlement Agreements Containing Confidentiality or Non-Disparagement Clauses and Their Effect on Lawyer Marketing for and Representing Future Clients","topics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"researchTopics":["client-lists-case-results","past-results"],"holding":"Lawyers may not publicize identifying facts of a client's case in marketing without consent, but may advertise the types of matters they handle.","text":"Lawyers may not publicize identifying facts of a client's case in marketing without consent, but may advertise the types of matters they handle.","whatToDo":"Get client consent before naming a case or its facts in marketing, and describe practice areas rather than unverifiable win counts against named parties.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the PBA formal-opinion database","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","7.1","7.4","5.6","3.4"],"url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=e8a4ce7c-4dd1-450f-9ddd-d6c9b703432e","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a non-disparagement clause or confidentiality clause cannot preclude advertisement of areas of practice","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, Formal Opinion 2016-300","url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=e8a4ce7c-4dd1-450f-9ddd-d6c9b703432e","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a non-disparagement clause or confidentiality clause cannot preclude advertisement of areas of practice"}],"note":"Month only on the opinion."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2016-8","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2016-8","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-10-07","dateNote":null,"title":"Client Testimonials in Lawyer Advertising and Online Services","topics":["testimonials","reviews","past-results"],"researchTopics":["testimonials-endorsements","online-reviews","past-results"],"holding":"Client testimonials are allowed if not misleading, testimonials stating settlement or verdict amounts are misleading, and a lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on sites the lawyer controls.","text":"Client testimonials are allowed if not misleading, testimonials stating settlement or verdict amounts are misleading, and a lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on sites the lawyer controls.","whatToDo":"Use testimonials with a disclaimer, never quote dollar results in them, and remove misleading reviews from sites you control.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":["OH Adv. Op. 89-24","OH Adv. Op. 2000-6"],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6","1.9","7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_16-008.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Client testimonials in an advertisement that state the amount of a settlement or verdict are inherently misleading even if a disclaimer is used","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-10-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2016-8","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_16-008.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Client testimonials in an advertisement that state the amount of a settlement or verdict are inherently misleading even if a disclaimer is used"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark. Withdraws Opinions 89-24 and 2000-6."},{"id":"pa-pba-2016-200","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee","number":"Formal Opinion 2016-200","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-09","dateNote":null,"title":"Ethical Considerations Relating to Participation in Fixed Fee Limited Scope Legal Services Referral Programs","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","lead-generators","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees","lead-generation"],"holding":"Lawyers may not join Avvo Legal Services-type programs where the company collects the client's fee and takes a marketing fee that rises with it; that is fee-sharing.","text":"Lawyers may not join Avvo Legal Services-type programs where the company collects the client's fee and takes a marketing fee that rises with it; that is fee-sharing.","whatToDo":"Avoid platforms that hold your client's fee or take a percentage-style 'marketing fee'; pay only flat advertising or per-lead costs that do not depend on what you earn.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the PBA formal-opinion database","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","1.15(i)","5.4(c)","7.7(a)","2.1"],"url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=d578e2f1-d8dd-4122-80a8-4149dde06ae8","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the amount of the \"marketing fee\" varies directly with the amount of the flat fee for the legal services.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, Formal Opinion 2016-200","url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=d578e2f1-d8dd-4122-80a8-4149dde06ae8","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the amount of the \"marketing fee\" varies directly with the amount of the flat fee for the legal services."}],"note":"Document served from the PBA's own document host (linked from the pabar.org Ethics Opinions Search page). Month only on the opinion."},{"id":"tx-pec-663","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"663","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-09","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Using the name of a multi-firm organization (verein) as a Texas firm name]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A Texas firm may not use a multi-firm network's name that includes people who were never lawyers in the Texas firm; disclaimers do not cure it.","text":"A Texas firm may not use a multi-firm network's name that includes people who were never lawyers in the Texas firm; disclaimers do not cure it.","whatToDo":"Do not practice or advertise under a network or affiliation name that lists lawyers who were never in your firm.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"Bar site shows no notice of change, but the firm-name rule it applies (former Rule 7.01(a)) was part of Part VII, which was amended effective July 1, 2021; current effect not confirmed.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.01(a)","7.01(d)","7.01(e)","7.02(a)","7.04(o)(5)"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-663/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may not use the name of the organization as their law firm's name on pleadings or other public communications","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 663","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-663/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may not use the name of the organization as their law firm's name on pleadings or other public communications"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"tx-pec-662","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"662","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-08","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Responding publicly to a former client's negative online review]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may answer a former client's negative online review only with a short, restrained reply that reveals no confidential information.","text":"A lawyer may answer a former client's negative online review only with a short, restrained reply that reveals no confidential information.","whatToDo":"When you get a bad review, reply briefly without any client details, or do not reply at all.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.05"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-662/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The lawyer may post a proportional and restrained response that does not reveal any confidential information","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-08","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 662","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-662/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The lawyer may post a proportional and restrained response that does not reveal any confidential information"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"wi-sbw-ie-16-01","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WI","jurisdictionKey":"wisconsin","jurisdictionName":"Wisconsin","fips":"55","body":"State Bar of Wisconsin, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"IE-16-01","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-07-18","dateNote":null,"title":"Advertising and Solicitation in Law-Related Services Owned by Lawyer","topics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer who also runs a financial planning business may mention her law practice in its marketing, but may not offer legal services in person to its clients.","text":"A lawyer who also runs a financial planning business may mention her law practice in its marketing, but may not offer legal services in person to its clients.","whatToDo":"If you own a side business, you may note your law practice in its ads, but do not pitch legal work in person to its customers.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["SCR 20:7.1","SCR 20:7.2","SCR 20:7.3(a)","SCR 20:1.7","SCR 20:1.8(a)"],"url":"https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/IE-16-01%20Advertising%20and%20Solicitation%20in%20Law-Related%20Services%20Owned%20by%20Lawyer.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may indicate that the lawyer has a law practice in the marketing materials for the law","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-07-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Wisconsin, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, IE-16-01","url":"https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/IE-16-01%20Advertising%20and%20Solicitation%20in%20Law-Related%20Services%20Owned%20by%20Lawyer.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may indicate that the lawyer has a law practice in the marketing materials for the law"}],"note":"Pre-2020; the only Wisconsin opinion since 2015 squarely on advertising/solicitation found on the State Bar list."},{"id":"ri-eap-2016-07","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2016-07","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-07-14","dateNote":null,"title":"[E-mailing members of the Bar to seek client referrals]","topics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"A firm may e-mail other Rhode Island lawyers asking for referrals; lawyer-to-lawyer e-mails are neither ads nor solicitations, but must still be truthful and follow the specialization rule.","text":"A firm may e-mail other Rhode Island lawyers asking for referrals; lawyer-to-lawyer e-mails are neither ads nor solicitations, but must still be truthful and follow the specialization rule.","whatToDo":"Referral-request e-mails to other lawyers are fine; keep them accurate and avoid improper specialist claims.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3","7.4"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2016-07.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Sending e-mails to members of the Rhode Island Bar for the purpose of seeking referrals of clients is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-07-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2016-07","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2016-07.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Sending e-mails to members of the Rhode Island Bar for the purpose of seeking referrals of clients is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct."}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-661","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"661","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-07","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Using a competing lawyer's name as a search-engine advertising keyword]","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"Buying a competing lawyer's or firm's name as a search-ad keyword does not by itself break the Texas rules, but the ad text must not be false or misleading.","text":"Buying a competing lawyer's or firm's name as a search-ad keyword does not by itself break the Texas rules, but the ad text must not be false or misleading.","whatToDo":"You may bid on competitor names as keywords in Texas, but keep the ad text truthful and do not imply you are the competitor.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["8.04(a)(3)","7.02(a)","7.01(d)","7.04"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-661/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by simply using the name of a competing lawyer or law firm as","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 661","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-661/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by simply using the name of a competing lawyer or law firm as"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection. Expressly disagrees with North Carolina 2010 FEO 14."},{"id":"ga-sbg-fao-16-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"GA","jurisdictionKey":"georgia","jurisdictionName":"Georgia","fips":"13","body":"State Bar of Georgia, Formal Advisory Opinion Board","number":"16-3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-06-14","dateNote":"issued by the Board and filed with the Supreme Court of Georgia June 14, 2016; Supreme Court declined review by order of December 8, 2016 (Docket S17U0554)","title":"[Sole practitioner firm names using \"Group\", \"Firm\" or \"& Associates\"]","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A solo lawyer may not use \"Group\" or \"& Associates\" in a firm name because they falsely suggest other lawyers, but may use \"Firm\".","text":"A solo lawyer may not use \"Group\" or \"& Associates\" in a firm name because they falsely suggest other lawyers, but may use \"Firm\".","whatToDo":"If you practice alone, drop \"Group\" or \"& Associates\" from your firm name; \"Law Firm\" is fine.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/office-of-general-counsel/sc-orders_opinions/sc-order-fao-163.pdf?sfvrsn=f384af46_1","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The above-referenced Formal Advisory Opinion No. 16-3 was filed by the State Bar of Georgia on June 14, 2016","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-06-14","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Georgia, Formal Advisory Opinion Board, 16-3","url":"https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/office-of-general-counsel/sc-orders_opinions/sc-order-fao-163.pdf?sfvrsn=f384af46_1","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The above-referenced Formal Advisory Opinion No. 16-3 was filed by the State Bar of Georgia on June 14, 2016"}],"note":"Opinion text read in the State Bar of Georgia online Handbook (https://www.gabar.org/handbook/, Formal Advisory Opinion No. 16-3), which loads its text with scripts, so checkquote cannot see it. The quote is therefore taken from the Supreme Court order PDF hosted on gabar.org. Proposed as FAO No. 15-R1."},{"id":"oh-bpc-2016-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OH","jurisdictionKey":"ohio","jurisdictionName":"Ohio","fips":"39","body":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","number":"Adv. Op. 2016-3","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-06-03","dateNote":null,"title":"Lawyer Participation in Referral Services","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join an online nonlawyer referral service charging a per-service or percentage 'marketing fee' unless it is registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio.","text":"A lawyer may not join an online nonlawyer referral service charging a per-service or percentage 'marketing fee' unless it is registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio.","whatToDo":"Before joining an online legal marketplace, check its fee model; avoid per-matter or percentage fees unless it is a registered lawyer referral service.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Current on the Board's Advisory Opinion Status List (ohioadvop.org)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","1.18","5.3","5.4","5.5","7.2","7.3","7.4","Gov.Bar R. XVI"],"url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_16-003.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a fee structure that is tied specifically to individual client representations that a lawyer completes or to the percentage of a fee is not permissible","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-06-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Adv. Op. 2016-3","url":"https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_16-003.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a fee structure that is tied specifically to individual client representations that a lawyer completes or to the percentage of a fee is not permissible"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark (Avvo Legal Services-type platforms)."},{"id":"nj-caa-awards-reminder-2016","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2016-05-04","dateNote":"Document Date May 4, 2016; published May 18, 2016","title":"Attorney Advertising of Awards, Honors, and Accolades That Compare a Lawyer's Services to Other Lawyers' Services - Reminder From the Committee on Attorney Advertising","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"Comparative awards may be advertised only if the issuer really looked into the lawyer's fitness, with the methodology, issuer name and the Supreme Court disclaimer.","text":"Comparative awards may be advertised only if the issuer really looked into the lawyer's fitness, with the methodology, issuer name and the Supreme Court disclaimer.","whatToDo":"Follow the 2021 reminder, which repeats and expands this notice.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"restated and expanded by the May 2021 reminder (adds AV Preeminent, regional-magazine surveys); no formal withdrawal found","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)(3)"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2016/05/n160518a.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"This inquiry into the lawyer's fitness must be more rigorous than a simple tally of the lawyer's years of practice and lack of disciplinary history.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-05-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey, Committee on Attorney Advertising, None","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2016/05/n160518a.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"This inquiry into the lawyer's fitness must be more rigorous than a simple tally of the lawyer's years of practice and lack of disciplinary history."}],"note":"Notice to the Bar, not a numbered opinion."},{"id":"or-osb-2005-169","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-169","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-04","dateNote":"Revised 2016 version approved by the Board of Governors, April 2016; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Firm Names—Retired Partner Mediator","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A firm may keep a retired partner's name in the firm name and list the retired partner as available only as a mediator, if that is not false or misleading.","text":"A firm may keep a retired partner's name in the firm name and list the retired partner as available only as a mediator, if that is not false or misleading.","whatToDo":"Keeping a retired partner's name is fine if you state accurately what that person now does.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2016 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-169.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"These rules permit the use of Lawyer A’s name in the firm name as long as the use of the name is not false or","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-04","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-169","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-169.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"These rules permit the use of Lawyer A’s name in the firm name as long as the use of the name is not false or"}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-654","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"654","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016-03","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Offering free bail bond and warrant information to attract visitors to a law office]","topics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise and give free bail-bond and warrant-check information to office visitors; it is not paying to solicit, but the offer must be honored.","text":"A lawyer may advertise and give free bail-bond and warrant-check information to office visitors; it is not paying to solicit, but the offer must be honored.","whatToDo":"If you advertise free information, give it to everyone who asks, never make it depend on hiring you, and supervise staff who hand it out.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.03(c)","8.04(a)(3)","5.03"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-654/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by offering and giving free information about bail bonds and warrants to the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016-03","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 654","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-654/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by offering and giving free information about bail bonds and warrants to the"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"md-msba-2016-14","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MD","jurisdictionKey":"maryland","jurisdictionName":"Maryland","fips":"24","body":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics","number":"Ethics Docket No. 2016-14","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016","dateNote":"year from the docket number; no date shown on the page","title":"[Online fixed-fee legal services programs and per-service \"marketing\" fees]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"Paying an online fixed-fee legal services company a 'marketing' fee that is charged only when a client hires you and varies with the service is improper fee-sharing with a nonlawyer.","text":"Paying an online fixed-fee legal services company a 'marketing' fee that is charged only when a client hires you and varies with the service is improper fee-sharing with a nonlawyer.","whatToDo":"Avoid platforms that charge a per-matter fee that rises with your legal fee; flat advertising fees are allowed.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the MSBA ethics opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","7.2(c)"],"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2016/2016-14.aspx","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a fee paid to participate in an online fixed-fee legal services program constitutes fee-sharing if the fee is contingent upon a client retaining a lawyer","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket No. 2016-14","url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2016/2016-14.aspx","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a fee paid to participate in an online fixed-fee legal services program constitutes fee-sharing if the fee is contingent upon a client retaining a lawyer"}],"note":null},{"id":"md-msba-2016-13","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MD","jurisdictionKey":"maryland","jurisdictionName":"Maryland","fips":"24","body":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics","number":"Ethics Docket No. 2016-13","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016","dateNote":"year from the docket number; no date shown on the page","title":"Whether a lawyer can pay a fee to an online legal directory for increased visibility throughout the website, including on other lawyers' profile pages?","topics":["lawyer-platforms","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay an online directory for extra visibility, including ads on other lawyers' profiles, if the ads are truthful and fees are not tied to successful referrals.","text":"A lawyer may pay an online directory for extra visibility, including ads on other lawyers' profiles, if the ads are truthful and fees are not tied to successful referrals.","whatToDo":"Paid directory upgrades are fine if the price is not tied to signed clients; keep your profile accurate.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the MSBA ethics opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2(c)","7.3"],"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2016/2016-13.aspx","sourceKind":"official","quote":"there is no direct solicitation of business and the paid level advertisement is not tied to successful referrals","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket No. 2016-13","url":"https://www.msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/Ethics-Opinions/2016/2016-13.aspx","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"there is no direct solicitation of business and the paid level advertisement is not tied to successful referrals"}],"note":null},{"id":"sc-scbar-16-06","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"SC","jurisdictionKey":"south-carolina","jurisdictionName":"South Carolina","fips":"45","body":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee","number":"16-06","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016","dateNote":"Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number.","title":"[Fixed-fee referral service run by an attorney directory website; per-service marketing fee]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join a directory's fixed-fee service that collects the client's fee and keeps a per-service marketing fee; that splits fees and pays for referrals.","text":"A lawyer may not join a directory's fixed-fee service that collects the client's fee and keeps a per-service marketing fee; that splits fees and pays for referrals.","whatToDo":"Do not join platforms that hold your client’s fee or take a cut that varies by the service you perform.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","7.2(c)"],"url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-16-06/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the arrangement would violate the Rule 7.2(c) prohibition of paying for a referral and is not saved by the exceptions","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"South Carolina Bar, Ethics Advisory Committee, 16-06","url":"https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-16-06/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the arrangement would violate the Rule 7.2(c) prohibition of paying for a referral and is not saved by the exceptions"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark (the Avvo Legal Services-type model); widely cited (e.g., by Florida Op. 18-1 and WV L.E.O. 2018-01). The opinion does not name the platform. Page shows no issue date; year taken from the opinion number."},{"id":"ca-coprac-2016-196","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC)","number":"2016-196","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016","dateNote":"Only the year is shown (opinion number and State Bar index).","title":"Attorney Blogging","topics":["social-media"],"researchTopics":["social-media"],"holding":"A blog is advertising when it is on the firm website or invites readers to hire the lawyer; a stand-alone blog is not unless it signals availability for hire.","text":"A blog is advertising when it is on the firm website or invites readers to hire the lawyer; a stand-alone blog is not unless it signals availability for hire.","whatToDo":"Treat any blog on your firm site, or any blog post that invites readers to hire you or details case results, as an ad that must follow the advertising rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on State Bar ethics opinions page; no notice of change found on the bar site. Decided under former rule 1-400; current rules took effect Nov. 1, 2018.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 1-400","Bus. & Prof. Code 6157-6159.2"],"url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/CAL-2016-196-[12-0006]-Blogging.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"unless the blog directly or implicitly expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), 2016-196","url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/CAL-2016-196-[12-0006]-Blogging.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"unless the blog directly or implicitly expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment"}],"note":null},{"id":"wa-wsba-201601","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WA","jurisdictionKey":"washington","jurisdictionName":"Washington","fips":"53","body":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"201601","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2016","dateNote":"Year Issued: 2016, with 2022 and 2025 amendments (per the opinion header).","title":"Ethical Practices of the Virtual or Hybrid Law Office","topics":["advertising-general","websites","office-address"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"A virtual lawyer may list an accurate P.O. box or business-center address in ads, but may not imply a firm or local office that does not exist.","text":"A virtual lawyer may list an accurate P.O. box or business-center address in ads, but may not imply a firm or local office that does not exist.","whatToDo":"Use an accurate address in ads and say if you do not meet clients in person there.","opinionStatus":"modified","statusNote":"Amended 2022 and 2025 per the opinion header; current amended text read.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","5.5","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1706","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer working virtually may use a post office box, private mailbox, or a business service center as an office address in advertisements","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2016","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 201601","url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1706","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer working virtually may use a post office box, private mailbox, or a business service center as an office address in advertisements"}],"note":"Mostly about virtual practice generally; advertising section is one part."},{"id":"ri-eap-2015-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"RI","jurisdictionKey":"rhode-island","jurisdictionName":"Rhode Island","fips":"44","body":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel","number":"Op. 2015-03","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-11-19","dateNote":null,"title":"[Advertising slogan \"Win with [lawyer's name]\"]","topics":["past-results","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["past-results","advertising-general"],"holding":"Rhyming slogans like 'Win with [name]' are not false or misleading because a reasonable person would not read them as promising to win every case.","text":"Rhyming slogans like 'Win with [name]' are not false or misleading because a reasonable person would not read them as promising to win every case.","whatToDo":"Short upbeat slogans are allowed, but pair them with a results disclaimer and do not promise outcomes.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the RI Judiciary opinions listing","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1"],"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2015-03.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The Panel does not believe that there exists a substantial likelihood that a reasonable member of the public would conclude from the inquiring attorney's rhyming","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-11-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2015-03","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2015-03.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The Panel does not believe that there exists a substantial likelihood that a reasonable member of the public would conclude from the inquiring attorney's rhyming"}],"note":null},{"id":"tx-pec-651","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"651","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-11","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Website email links and warnings to prospective clients about confidentiality]","topics":["websites"],"researchTopics":["website-disclaimers"],"holding":"A Texas firm need not post a no-confidentiality warning on website email links, but without an accepted warning it may have to treat what prospects send as confidential.","text":"A Texas firm need not post a no-confidentiality warning on website email links, but without an accepted warning it may have to treat what prospects send as confidential.","whatToDo":"Put a clear click-to-accept notice before your website contact form or email link if you want to be free to use unsolicited information.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.05"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-651/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a law firm is not required to include in the law firm's web site a notice warning persons who use the web site's email links","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 651","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-651/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a law firm is not required to include in the law firm's web site a notice warning persons who use the web site's email links"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection."},{"id":"ut-eaoc-15-05","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"15-05","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-10-06","dateNote":null,"title":"[Paying an internet service a nominal fee to bid on legal work]","topics":["lawyer-platforms","lead-generators","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","lead-generation"],"holding":"A Utah lawyer may pay a small per-bid fee to an online service to bid on legal work, if conflicts are checked and prospects' information is kept confidential.","text":"A Utah lawyer may pay a small per-bid fee to an online service to bid on legal work, if conflicts are checked and prospects' information is kept confidential.","whatToDo":"You may use pay-per-bid sites, but run a conflict check and protect what prospective clients tell you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; it applies former Rules 7.2 and 7.3, which were deleted in 2020","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Rule 7.1","Rule 7.2","Rule 7.3","Rule 1.18"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2015-05.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Using such an internet business to seek new clients does not violate Rule 1.18 or other rules of professional conduct","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-10-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 15-05","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2015-05.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Using such an internet business to seek new clients does not violate Rule 1.18 or other rules of professional conduct"}],"note":null},{"id":"wv-ldb-leo-2015-02","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WV","jurisdictionKey":"west-virginia","jurisdictionName":"West Virginia","fips":"54","body":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board","number":"L.E.O. 2015-02","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-09-18","dateNote":"approved September 18, 2015; entered September 22, 2015","title":"Social Media and Attorneys","topics":["social-media","solicitation","websites"],"researchTopics":["social-media","solicitation","website-disclaimers"],"holding":"Lawyers may advertise on social media but must follow the same rules as elsewhere, must not solicit by real-time electronic contact, and may form prospective-client relationships online.","text":"Lawyers may advertise on social media but must follow the same rules as elsewhere, must not solicit by real-time electronic contact, and may form prospective-client relationships online.","whatToDo":"Treat social media posts and messages like any other ad, avoid real-time solicitation, and use warnings when inviting people to share case details.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.3","1.18"],"url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7dc87f33d3e149ff03.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":null,"status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-09-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, L.E.O. 2015-02","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7dc87f33d3e149ff03.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":null}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark (cited by Florida Op. 20-1). Only parts of the 24-page opinion were read (sections on advertising/solicitation, prospective clients, and the conclusion). The official copy on the ODC website is an image-only scan with no text layer, so checkquote.py cannot verify any quote; quote is null. Text was read visually from the page images of the official PDF."},{"id":"or-osb-2005-108","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-108","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-09","dateNote":"Revised 2015 version approved by the Board of Governors, September 2015; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Dual Professions, Yellow Pages Advertising","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer-mediator may also advertise under a counselors heading if the ad is not misleading and shows the lawyer's status as a lawyer offering mediation.","text":"A lawyer-mediator may also advertise under a counselors heading if the ad is not misleading and shows the lawyer's status as a lawyer offering mediation.","whatToDo":"When you advertise under a non-legal category, say clearly that you are a lawyer.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2015 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5(a)","8.4"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-108.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"must reflect Lawyer’s status as a lawyer offering services as a family mediator.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-108","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-108.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"must reflect Lawyer’s status as a lawyer offering services as a family mediator."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-153","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-153","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-09","dateNote":"Revised 2015 version approved by the Board of Governors, September 2015; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Insurer-Employed Lawyers' Firm Name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Insurance-company staff lawyers may not use a name like 'A & B, Attorneys at Law' without disclosing they are employees of the insurer.","text":"Insurance-company staff lawyers may not use a name like 'A & B, Attorneys at Law' without disclosing they are employees of the insurer.","whatToDo":"If you are staff counsel, show your employer relationship on letterhead and pleadings.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2015 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5","8.4(a)(3)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-153.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Courts in other jurisdictions have held that failure to identify lawyer employees of an insurer is misleading.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-153","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-153.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Courts in other jurisdictions have held that failure to identify lawyer employees of an insurer is misleading."}],"note":null},{"id":"il-isba-1505","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"IL","jurisdictionKey":"illinois","jurisdictionName":"Illinois","fips":"17","body":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions","number":"15-05","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-09","dateNote":"only month and year shown on the ISBA page","title":"Links on a lawyer's website to other businesses or organizations","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A law firm's website may include links to other businesses or organizations.","text":"A law firm's website may include links to other businesses or organizations.","whatToDo":"You may link to other businesses on your site, but keep the overall site truthful.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/1505","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A law firm’s website may contain links to other websites of other businesses and/or organizations.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Illinois State Bar Association, Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions, 15-05","url":"https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/1505","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A law firm’s website may contain links to other websites of other businesses and/or organizations."}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as Illinois' only opinion on website links."},{"id":"ct-cba-15-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CT","jurisdictionKey":"connecticut","jurisdictionName":"Connecticut","fips":"09","body":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Informal Opinion 15-04","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-07-15","dateNote":"approved date","title":"Lawyer's Participation in a Barter-Exchange Program","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees","solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may join a barter exchange with uniform membership and transaction fees, but must make sure its listings and solicitations follow the advertising rules.","text":"A lawyer may join a barter exchange with uniform membership and transaction fees, but must make sure its listings and solicitations follow the advertising rules.","whatToDo":"If you list on a barter or member network, check that its ads about you are accurate, name your licensing states, and that it does not solicit in person for you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the CBA informal opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4(a)","7.2(c)","7.3","1.15"],"url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2015-opinions/cba-informal-opinion-15-04-lawyer_s-participation-in-barter-exchange.pdf?sfvrsn=da464e2b_8","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The attorney should monitor the actions and communications relating to attorney services of the Barter Exchange with Members and ensure continued compliance with the advertising","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-07-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Connecticut Bar Association, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, Informal Opinion 15-04","url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2015-opinions/cba-informal-opinion-15-04-lawyer_s-participation-in-barter-exchange.pdf?sfvrsn=da464e2b_8","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The attorney should monitor the actions and communications relating to attorney services of the Barter Exchange with Members and ensure continued compliance with the advertising"}],"note":null},{"id":"dc-dcbar-369","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DC","jurisdictionKey":"district-of-columbia","jurisdictionName":"District of Columbia","fips":"11","body":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"369","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-07","dateNote":"\"Published: July 2015\" shown on the D.C. Bar page; no day given","title":"Sharing of Legal Fees With a Lawyer Referral Service","topics":["fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay a referral service a flat fee per referral, but a percentage only to a qualifying nonprofit or as a true lawyer referral service's usual charge.","text":"A lawyer may pay a referral service a flat fee per referral, but a percentage only to a qualifying nonprofit or as a true lawyer referral service's usual charge.","whatToDo":"Pay referral services flat fees; pay a percentage only to a qualifying nonprofit lawyer referral service.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site (listed on the D.C. Bar Ethics Opinions 210-Present index without a change note)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.1"],"url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-369","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may remit a percentage of fees earned on a matter referred to her by the inquiring \"lawyer referral service\" only if such fees","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee, 369","url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-369","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may remit a percentage of fees earned on a matter referred to her by the inquiring \"lawyer referral service\" only if such fees"}],"note":null},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2015-feo-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2015 FEO 3","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-04-17","dateNote":"adopted date","title":"Offering Prospective Client a Computer Tablet in Direct Mail Solicitation","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may not offer a free computer tablet to prospective clients in a direct-mail solicitation letter.","text":"A lawyer may not offer a free computer tablet to prospective clients in a direct-mail solicitation letter.","whatToDo":"Do not offer gifts or prizes to people in solicitation letters.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3","7.1","1.8(e)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2015-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may not offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-04-17","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2015 FEO 3","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2015-formal-ethics-opinion-3/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may not offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter"}],"note":"Pre-2020; included as the controlling North Carolina opinion on inducements in solicitations. Rule numbers as cited in the opinion (pre-2019 numbering)."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1052","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1052","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-25","dateNote":"opinion date 3/25/15 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Compensating clients to rate lawyer on Internet website","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may give clients a $50 bill credit for rating the lawyer on a site like Avvo if the credit does not depend on what they write.","text":"A lawyer may give clients a $50 bill credit for rating the lawyer on a site like Avvo if the credit does not depend on what they write.","whatToDo":"Any reward for a review must be the same whatever the review says, and clients must write it themselves.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)-(d)","7.2(a)","8.4(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1052/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may give clients a $50 credit on their legal bills if they rate the lawyer on an Internet website such as Avvo","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1052","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1052/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may give clients a $50 credit on their legal bills if they rate the lawyer on an Internet website such as Avvo"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: see also N.Y. State 1286 (2025) on nominal gifts for Google reviews."},{"id":"hi-db-fo-41","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"HI","jurisdictionKey":"hawaii","jurisdictionName":"Hawaii","fips":"15","body":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court","number":"41","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-19","dateNote":"Updated March 19, 2015; originally dated April 26, 2001.","title":"Attorney Web Sites and Other Electronic Advertising","topics":["websites","trade-names","advertising-general","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["website-disclaimers","domain-trade-names","advertising-general"],"holding":"Website content, domain names, web and email addresses, banners and pop-ups are advertising and must follow the Hawaii advertising rules.","text":"Website content, domain names, web and email addresses, banners and pop-ups are advertising and must follow the Hawaii advertising rules.","whatToDo":"Treat your website, domain name and online ads as advertising and check them against HRPC 7.1-7.5.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as 'currently in effect' on the Disciplinary Board site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3(a)","7.4","7.5"],"url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_41.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Communications covered by this Opinion include, but are not limited to: domain names; web addresses; e-mail addresses","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 41","url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_41.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Communications covered by this Opinion include, but are not limited to: domain names; web addresses; e-mail addresses"}],"note":"Hawaii formal opinions are binding on the bar per the Disciplinary Board site."},{"id":"hi-db-fo-42","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"HI","jurisdictionKey":"hawaii","jurisdictionName":"Hawaii","fips":"15","body":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court","number":"42","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-19","dateNote":"Updated March 19, 2015; originally dated March 28, 2002.","title":"Captive Law Firms","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"An insurance-company staff lawyer may not use a firm name, letterhead or business card that suggests an independent law firm.","text":"An insurance-company staff lawyer may not use a firm name, letterhead or business card that suggests an independent law firm.","whatToDo":"If you are insurer staff counsel, make your employment status clear on all names and letterhead.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as 'currently in effect' on the Disciplinary Board site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5","7.5(e)"],"url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_42.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"uses a firm name, letterhead, business card, or other professional designations that state or imply that he or she practices in a separate independent law","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 42","url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_42.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"uses a firm name, letterhead, business card, or other professional designations that state or imply that he or she practices in a separate independent law"}],"note":null},{"id":"hi-db-fo-43","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"HI","jurisdictionKey":"hawaii","jurisdictionName":"Hawaii","fips":"15","body":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court","number":"43","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-19","dateNote":"Updated March 19, 2015; originally dated April 29, 2010.","title":"Of Counsel","topics":["advertising-general","trade-names"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Lawyers may use 'of counsel' or similar titles on letterhead, cards and ads only for a continuing, close and regular relationship, and must state any jurisdiction limits.","text":"Lawyers may use 'of counsel' or similar titles on letterhead, cards and ads only for a continuing, close and regular relationship, and must state any jurisdiction limits.","whatToDo":"Use 'of counsel' only for a real ongoing relationship and note licensing limits.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as 'currently in effect' on the Disciplinary Board site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_43.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"is permissible as long as the relationship between the two is a continuing, close, and regular relationship and the use of the title is not","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 43","url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_43.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"is permissible as long as the relationship between the two is a continuing, close, and regular relationship and the use of the title is not"}],"note":null},{"id":"hi-db-fo-18-22","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"HI","jurisdictionKey":"hawaii","jurisdictionName":"Hawaii","fips":"15","body":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court","number":"18 and 22","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-19","dateNote":"Updated March 19, 2015; Nos. 18 (1978) and 22 combined and updated June 28, 2001.","title":"Sharing Office Space","topics":["fee-sharing","solicitation"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may share office space and staff with nonlawyers if the businesses stay distinct to the public and the nonlawyer does not solicit or feed cases to the lawyer.","text":"A lawyer may share office space and staff with nonlawyers if the businesses stay distinct to the public and the nonlawyer does not solicit or feed cases to the lawyer.","whatToDo":"If you share space with non-lawyers, keep separate identities and never let them steer clients to you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as 'currently in effect' on the Disciplinary Board site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.2(b)","7.3(a)"],"url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_18_and_22.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"so long as the separate business entities are distinct to callers and visitors and the nonlawyer does not solicit for or feed cases to the","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 18 and 22","url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO_18_and_22.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"so long as the separate business entities are distinct to callers and visitors and the nonlawyer does not solicit for or feed cases to the"}],"note":null},{"id":"hi-db-fo-46","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"HI","jurisdictionKey":"hawaii","jurisdictionName":"Hawaii","fips":"15","body":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court","number":"46","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-19","dateNote":"Updated March 19, 2015; originally dated June 26, 2003.","title":"Referral Fees","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not accept a fee from a nonlawyer business for referring a client to it, even with disclosure and consent.","text":"A lawyer may not accept a fee from a nonlawyer business for referring a client to it, even with disclosure and consent.","whatToDo":"Never take a referral fee from realtors, advisors, medical providers or other vendors you send clients to.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as 'currently in effect' on the Disciplinary Board site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.7(a)","1.7(b)(1)","2.1"],"url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO4603-19-15.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"is prohibited from accepting a fee for referring the client to a third-party provider of non-legal services or products.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, 46","url":"https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/FO4603-19-15.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"is prohibited from accepting a fee for referring the client to a third-party provider of non-legal services or products."}],"note":"Concerns referral fees the lawyer receives (outbound referrals), not payments for marketing."},{"id":"ny-nycla-748","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York County Lawyers Association, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"748","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-10","dateNote":"date taken from the page title ('03.10.15'); no other date shown","title":"The ethical implications of attorney profiles on LinkedIn","topics":["social-media","websites","specialist-claims","testimonials"],"researchTopics":["social-media","website-disclaimers","specialist-claims","testimonials-endorsements"],"holding":"A LinkedIn profile listing only education and jobs is not an ad, but adding practice areas, skills or endorsements likely makes it one; lawyers must remove inaccurate endorsements.","text":"A LinkedIn profile listing only education and jobs is not an ad, but adding practice areas, skills or endorsements likely makes it one; lawyers must remove inaccurate endorsements.","whatToDo":"Treat a LinkedIn profile that lists practice areas, skills or endorsements as an ad, and delete endorsements that aren't accurate. New York dropped the set 'Attorney Advertising' label on June 1, 2026.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the NYCLA site; predates the NY advertising rule amendments eff. 2026-06-01, so its citations (e.g., 7.1(d), (e), (f), 7.4) may now be renumbered or changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.1(c)","7.1(d)","7.1(e)","7.1(f)","7.4"],"url":"https://www.nycla.org/resource/ethics-opinion/nycla-professional-ethics-committee-formal-opinion-748-on-the-ethical-implications-of-attorney-profiles-on-linkedin-03-10-15/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A LinkedIn profile that contains only one’s education and current and past employment does not constitute Attorney Advertising.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York County Lawyers Association, Professional Ethics Committee, 748","url":"https://www.nycla.org/resource/ethics-opinion/nycla-professional-ethics-committee-formal-opinion-748-on-the-ethical-implications-of-attorney-profiles-on-linkedin-03-10-15/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A LinkedIn profile that contains only one’s education and current and past employment does not constitute Attorney Advertising."}],"note":"Read the full opinion text on nycla.org."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1049","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1049","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-03-02","dateNote":"opinion date 3/2/15 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Solicitation","topics":["solicitation","social-media","waiting-period"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","social-media"],"holding":"Answering an online request for a lawyer, in the way invited, is advertising, not solicitation; posts seeking plaintiffs are allowed except about a specific incident during the waiting period.","text":"Answering an online request for a lawyer, in the way invited, is advertising, not solicitation; posts seeking plaintiffs are allowed except about a specific incident during the waiting period.","whatToDo":"Reply to online requests for a lawyer only in the way the person asked, and treat the reply as an ad.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.0(a) & (c)","7.1","7.1(f), (h) & (k)","7.3(a), (b), (c) & (e)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1049/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a New York lawyer may respond in the manner invited by the potential client. A response invited by the potential client does not constitute “solicitation,”","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-03-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1049","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1049/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a New York lawyer may respond in the manner invited by the potential client. A response invited by the potential client does not constitute “solicitation,”"}],"note":"Pre-2020 landmark: key NYSBA opinion on responding to online requests for a lawyer."},{"id":"nj-guideline-2-2015","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NJ","jurisdictionKey":"new-jersey","jurisdictionName":"New Jersey","fips":"34","body":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising)","number":"Attorney Advertising Guideline 2 (amended)","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2015-02-10","dateNote":"amendments dated 2015-02-10, effective 2015-03-01","title":"Amendments to Attorney Advertising Guideline 2","topics":["solicitation"],"researchTopics":["solicitation"],"holding":"Direct-mail solicitations must print 'ADVERTISEMENT' at the top, larger than the text, and on the envelope, which may carry only basic name and address details.","text":"Direct-mail solicitations must print 'ADVERTISEMENT' at the top, larger than the text, and on the envelope, which may carry only basic name and address details.","whatToDo":"On solicitation letters, print 'ADVERTISEMENT' two font sizes larger than the body text and keep the envelope to names, addresses and that word.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the njcourts.gov notices page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.3(b)(5)","Attorney Advertising Guideline 2"],"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2015/02/n150227b.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The envelope shall contain no language other than the lawyer's name, firm, and address; the word \"ADVERTISEMENT\"; and the recipient's name and address.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-02-10","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey (on recommendation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising), Attorney Advertising Guideline 2 (amended)","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2015/02/n150227b.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The envelope shall contain no language other than the lawyer's name, firm, and address; the word \"ADVERTISEMENT\"; and the recipient's name and address."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-12","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-12","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-02","dateNote":"Revised 2015 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2015; original 2005.","title":"Firm Names: Office Sharing with Separate Practices","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Lawyers who only share office space may not call themselves associates or of counsel to each other or use a joint name like 'A, B & C, Lawyers'.","text":"Lawyers who only share office space may not call themselves associates or of counsel to each other or use a joint name like 'A, B & C, Lawyers'.","whatToDo":"Do not use a shared firm-style name or letterhead with office mates who are not truly your firm.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2015 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5(a)","7.5(d)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-12.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"is misleading if no law firm exists in which all three lawyers are a part because that is what the name suggests.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-12","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-12.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"is misleading if no law firm exists in which all three lawyers are a part because that is what the name suggests."}],"note":null},{"id":"or-osb-2005-103","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-103","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-02","dateNote":"Revised 2015 version approved by the Board of Governors, February 2015; original 2005.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Multistate Law Firm, Advertising Availability of Out-of-State Lawyer","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A multistate firm may advertise its out-of-state lawyers to Oregon clients but may not suggest they are Oregon bar members when they are not.","text":"A multistate firm may advertise its out-of-state lawyers to Oregon clients but may not suggest they are Oregon bar members when they are not.","whatToDo":"List each lawyer's licensing states accurately on your website and ads.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Revised 2015 per OSB table of contents; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5(b)","5.5(c)","5.5(d)"],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-103.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A firm may not state or imply, however, that an out-of-state lawyer is, in fact, a member of the Oregon State Bar unless this is","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-103","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-103.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A firm may not state or imply, however, that an out-of-state lawyer is, in fact, a member of the Oregon State Bar unless this is"}],"note":null},{"id":"co-cba-98","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CO","jurisdictionKey":"colorado","jurisdictionName":"Colorado","fips":"08","body":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"98","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2015-01-17","dateNote":"adopted date; supersedes 1996 version of Opinion 98","title":"Ethical Responsibilities of Lawyers Who Engage in Other Businesses","topics":["advertising-general","solicitation","trade-names","domain-names"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general","solicitation","domain-trade-names"],"holding":"If a lawyer's side business is not kept clearly separate from the practice, its ads and solicitations must follow the lawyer advertising rules.","text":"If a lawyer's side business is not kept clearly separate from the practice, its ads and solicitations must follow the lawyer advertising rules.","whatToDo":"Market any side business under its own name, website and ads, with clear disclaimers, or follow the lawyer ad and solicitation rules for it.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Colo. RPC 5.7","Colo. RPC 7.1","Colo. RPC 7.2","Colo. RPC 7.3"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_98.pdf?ver=CW27Un_h6136llf5Q34Zzw%3d%3d","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the lawyer's communications regarding the law-related service, including advertising and solicitation of customers, must comply with Rules 7.1 through 7.3.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2015-01-17","effectiveTo":null,"era":"2015-2019","sources":[{"label":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee, 98","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_98.pdf?ver=CW27Un_h6136llf5Q34Zzw%3d%3d","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the lawyer's communications regarding the law-related service, including advertising and solicitation of customers, must comply with Rules 7.1 through 7.3."}],"note":null},{"id":"ut-eaoc-14-04","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"UT","jurisdictionKey":"utah","jurisdictionName":"Utah","fips":"49","body":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee","number":"14-04","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-11-12","dateNote":"issued November 12, 2014; document also dated February 4, 2015","title":"[Attorney rating systems: 'Best Lawyer' / 'Super Lawyer']","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise a rating only if the rater checked fitness, nothing was paid, the method is public, and the ad says 'included in', not 'the best'.","text":"A lawyer may advertise a rating only if the rater checked fitness, nothing was paid, the method is public, and the ad says 'included in', not 'the best'.","whatToDo":"Say 'named to' a ranking, never 'the best lawyer'; never pay for a rating itself; link to how the rating is chosen.","opinionStatus":"modified","statusNote":"Op. 22-02 (2022) keeps the false-or-misleading parts but says paying a celebrity to endorse a lawyer might now be allowed under Standing Order No. 15","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":["ut-eaoc-22-02"],"rules":["Rule 7.1","Rule 7.2","Rule 7.2(b)(1)"],"url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2014-04.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Any advertisement must state that the lawyer was included in a \"super\" or other such list or ranking rather than describe the lawyer as being","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-11-12","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Utah State Bar, Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, 14-04","url":"https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2014-04.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Any advertisement must state that the lawyer was included in a \"super\" or other such list or ranking rather than describe the lawyer as being"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark (issued Nov. 2014): still the controlling Utah opinion on ratings per Op. 22-02."},{"id":"ny-nysba-1032","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NY","jurisdictionKey":"new-york","jurisdictionName":"New York","fips":"36","body":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"1032","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-10-30","dateNote":"opinion date 10/30/2014 shown on the NYSBA page","title":"Responding to a former client’s critical commentary on a website","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal a former client’s confidential information just to answer that client’s criticism on a lawyer-rating website.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal a former client’s confidential information just to answer that client’s criticism on a lawyer-rating website.","whatToDo":"Answer bad reviews without revealing anything confidential about the client.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; NY Rules 7.1-7.5 were amended eff. 2026-06-01 (joint Appellate Division order) and this opinion predates that","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(b)","1.9(c)"],"url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1032/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer may not disclose confidential client information solely to respond to a former client’s criticism of the lawyer posted on a lawyer-rating website.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-10-30","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1032","url":"https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1032/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer may not disclose confidential client information solely to respond to a former client’s criticism of the lawyer posted on a lawyer-rating website."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: no later NYSBA opinion on responding to negative online reviews was found in the NYSBA listing; cited by D.C. Op. 370 (2016)."},{"id":"pa-pba-2014-300","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee","number":"Formal Opinion 2014-300","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-09","dateNote":null,"title":"Ethical Obligations for Attorneys Using Social Media","topics":["social-media","reviews","testimonials"],"researchTopics":["social-media","online-reviews","testimonials-endorsements"],"holding":"Lawyers may use social media, accept and answer reviews if they monitor accuracy, and give or ask for endorsements; practice-promoting posts are subject to the ethics rules.","text":"Lawyers may use social media, accept and answer reviews if they monitor accuracy, and give or ask for endorsements; practice-promoting posts are subject to the ethics rules.","whatToDo":"Monitor reviews and endorsements on your profiles, correct inaccurate ones, and treat any practice-related social media post as lawyer advertising.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the PBA formal-opinion database","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3","1.6","4.2","4.3","8.4"],"url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=24fb5b3f-8674-47c0-a29e-4078082668f4","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Attorneys may generally comment or respond to reviews or endorsements , and may solicit such endorsements.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-09","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, Formal Opinion 2014-300","url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=24fb5b3f-8674-47c0-a29e-4078082668f4","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Attorneys may generally comment or respond to reviews or endorsements , and may solicit such endorsements."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: still the PBA's main formal opinion on social media and reviews. Month only on the opinion."},{"id":"nh-nhba-2013-14-08","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NH","jurisdictionKey":"new-hampshire","jurisdictionName":"New Hampshire","fips":"33","body":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"Advisory Opinion #2013-14/08","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-02-22","dateNote":"submitted for publication by the NHBA Board of Governors at its February 22, 2014 meeting","title":"Providing Discounted Legal Services Through \"Group Coupon\" or \"Daily Deal\" Services","topics":["lawyer-platforms","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may offer discounted services through a group-coupon site's 'coupon deal' if ethical concerns are handled, but a prepaid voucher deal is unlikely to comply.","text":"A lawyer may offer discounted services through a group-coupon site's 'coupon deal' if ethical concerns are handled, but a prepaid voucher deal is unlikely to comply.","whatToDo":"If you use Groupon-type promotions, sell only a discount coupon (client pays you later), not a prepaid voucher for legal services.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found; cited as current guidance in the NHBA's 2020 Ethics Corner on online presence","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.5","1.15","5.4","7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/ethics/opinion-2013-14-08","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The Committee believes that it is unlikely that a prepaid deal could be structured to comply with the Rules.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-02-22","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"New Hampshire Bar Association, Ethics Committee, Advisory Opinion #2013-14/08","url":"https://www.nhbar.org/ethics/opinion-2013-14-08","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The Committee believes that it is unlikely that a prepaid deal could be structured to comply with the Rules."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: still the NHBA's only opinion on group-coupon marketing."},{"id":"mi-sbm-ri-366","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MI","jurisdictionKey":"michigan","jurisdictionName":"Michigan","fips":"26","body":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"RI-366","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-01-24","dateNote":null,"title":"[Coupon-type (daily deal) marketing of legal services]","topics":["fee-sharing","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","advertising-general"],"holding":"Selling legal services through a coupon company that keeps part of the price is improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer.","text":"Selling legal services through a coupon company that keeps part of the price is improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer.","whatToDo":"Do not sell your services through daily-deal coupon sites that take a cut of the fee.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.1","1.6","1.7","1.8","1.9","1.10","1.11","1.15(g)","1.16(d)","5.4","7.2"],"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-366","sourceKind":"official","quote":"A lawyer's participation in a marketing arrangement in which consumers purchase coupons for legal services from a vendor that retains a portion","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-01-24","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics, RI-366","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-366","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"A lawyer's participation in a marketing arrangement in which consumers purchase coupons for legal services from a vendor that retains a portion"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark (2014) included because it is still the Michigan opinion on coupon/daily-deal marketing; no later Michigan opinion on this found."},{"id":"ca-basf-2014-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"Bar Association of San Francisco, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"2014-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014-01","dateNote":"Issue date shown as January 2014. Pre-2015 landmark.","title":"[Responding to a negative online review by a former client]","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may respond generally to a former client's online review once the matter is over, without confidential information; if it is still open, a substantive reply may be inappropriate.","text":"A lawyer may respond generally to a former client's online review once the matter is over, without confidential information; if it is still open, a substantive reply may be inappropriate.","whatToDo":"Answer negative reviews only in general terms and never share client details.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on State Bar technology-opinions page and opinions table; no notice of change found on the bar site. Decided under former rule 3-100.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 3-100","Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(e)"],"url":"https://www.sfbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ethics-Opinion-2014-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"An attorney is not ethically barred from responding generally to an online review by a former client where the former client's matter has concluded.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014-01","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Bar Association of San Francisco, Legal Ethics Committee, 2014-1","url":"https://www.sfbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ethics-Opinion-2014-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"An attorney is not ethically barred from responding generally to an online review by a former client where the former client's matter has concluded."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark (county bar)."},{"id":"pa-pba-2014-200","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"PA","jurisdictionKey":"pennsylvania","jurisdictionName":"Pennsylvania","fips":"42","body":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee","number":"Formal Opinion 2014-200","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014","dateNote":"year only, from the opinion number; no month shown on the opinion or in the PBA database listing","title":"Lawyer's Response to Client's Negative Online Review","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may not reveal client confidential information when answering a negative online review without the client's informed consent; any reply should be short and restrained.","text":"A lawyer may not reveal client confidential information when answering a negative online review without the client's informed consent; any reply should be short and restrained.","whatToDo":"Reply to bad reviews, if at all, with a brief note that confidentiality prevents a point-by-point answer, and never share case details.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the PBA formal-opinion database","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.6(c)(4)"],"url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=abdb584c-e324-4365-800d-eb2343c04a62","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer cannot reveal client confidential information in response to a negative online review without the client's informed consent","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Pennsylvania Bar Association, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, Formal Opinion 2014-200","url":"https://pba-documents.azurewebsites.net/api/GetDocument?file-id=abdb584c-e324-4365-800d-eb2343c04a62","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer cannot reveal client confidential information in response to a negative online review without the client's informed consent"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: still the PBA's controlling opinion on responding to reviews; cited by the NHBA in 2020."},{"id":"vt-vba-2014-3","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VT","jurisdictionKey":"vermont","jurisdictionName":"Vermont","fips":"50","body":"Vermont Bar Association (advisory ethics opinions; committee name not shown on the opinion)","number":"VBA Opinion 2014-3","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014","dateNote":"only the year appears on the opinion","title":"[Paid listing in an accident smartphone app that shows nearby injury lawyers]","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms","solicitation","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms","solicitation"],"holding":"A firm may buy a geographic listing in a car-accident app showing nearby injury lawyers, since the app recommends no lawyer, if later contact follows the solicitation rules.","text":"A firm may buy a geographic listing in a car-accident app showing nearby injury lawyers, since the app recommends no lawyer, if later contact follows the solicitation rules.","whatToDo":"Paid directory or app listings sold by area are fine if the vendor does not pick or recommend you; keep any follow-up contact within the solicitation rules.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the VBA advisory ethics page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2(b)(2)","7.3","7.4"],"url":"https://www.vtbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/14-03.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"As presented, this arrangement does not trigger the VRPC 7. 2(b)(2) legal service referral considerations.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Vermont Bar Association (advisory ethics opinions; committee name not shown on the opinion), VBA Opinion 2014-3","url":"https://www.vtbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/14-03.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"As presented, this arrangement does not trigger the VRPC 7. 2(b)(2) legal service referral considerations."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: the VBA's advertising topic page lists no later advertising opinion, so this remains the latest VT committee word on paid lead/listing apps."},{"id":"wa-wsba-201401","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"WA","jurisdictionKey":"washington","jurisdictionName":"Washington","fips":"53","body":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"201401","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2014","dateNote":"Year Issued: 2014. Pre-2015 landmark.","title":"Participation in online lead generation services","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms","solicitation","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms","solicitation"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay an internet lead generator flat, monthly or per-click fees if it does not vouch for the lawyer and matches on disclosed objective criteria.","text":"A lawyer may pay an internet lead generator flat, monthly or per-click fees if it does not vouch for the lawyer and matches on disclosed objective criteria.","whatToDo":"Use lead services that match on objective criteria and do not vouch for you; avoid ones that pick lawyers for clients.","opinionStatus":"unknown","statusNote":"Listed in WSBA advisory opinions database without a note, but it cites pre-2021 RPC 7.2(b), 7.3 and 7.4; Washington amended its advertising rules in 2021, so current status is unclear.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.3(b)","5.3(c)","7.1","7.2(b)","7.3(a)","7.3(b)","7.3(c)","7.4","8.4(a)"],"url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1680","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internet-based client leads, as long as (1) the lead generator does not recommend, endorse, or","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2014","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, 201401","url":"https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1680","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internet-based client leads, as long as (1) the lead generator does not recommend, endorse, or"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark on lead generation."},{"id":"nv-sbn-adv-guidelines","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NV","jurisdictionKey":"nevada","jurisdictionName":"Nevada","fips":"32","body":"State Bar of Nevada, Standing Committees on Lawyer Advertising","number":null,"opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2013-11-21","dateNote":"date printed on the document; file name on the bar site is 'Interpretive Guidelines-1-28-15'","title":"Lawyer Advertising Interpretive Guidelines","topics":["past-results","testimonials","specialist-claims","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["past-results","testimonials-endorsements","specialist-claims","advertising-general"],"holding":"Past results need a disclaimer and must reflect money the client received; actors and dramatizations must be labeled; only certified specialists may say 'specialist' or 'expert'.","text":"Past results need a disclaimer and must reflect money the client received; actors and dramatizations must be labeled; only certified specialists may say 'specialist' or 'expert'.","whatToDo":"Before running a Nevada ad, check it against these guidelines: label actors and dramatizations, add past-results disclaimers, and do not call yourself a specialist unless certified.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; linked from the bar's Lawyer Advertising page as current guidance","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["RPC 7.1","RPC 7.2","RPC 7.3","RPC 7.4","RPC 7.5","RPC 7.2A","RPC 7.2B"],"url":"https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Interpretive%20Guidelines-1-28-15.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"any person appearing or speaking as though he or she were a client of the advertising lawyer or firm must be an actual client","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2013-11-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Nevada, Standing Committees on Lawyer Advertising, None","url":"https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Interpretive%20Guidelines-1-28-15.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"any person appearing or speaking as though he or she were a client of the advertising lawyer or firm must be an actual client"}],"note":"Pre-2015 item included as still-controlling guidance: it is the advertising committee's current published interpretive guidance on the bar's Lawyer Advertising page. Not a numbered ethics opinion."},{"id":"co-cba-106","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CO","jurisdictionKey":"colorado","jurisdictionName":"Colorado","fips":"08","body":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"106","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2013-10-21","dateNote":"adopted June 19, 1999; revised October 21, 2013","title":"Referral Fees and Networking Organizations","topics":["fee-sharing","lawyer-platforms","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A Colorado lawyer may not pay referral fees, but may pay a nonprofit referral service's usual charges and join cooperative marketing that is not a disguised referral service.","text":"A Colorado lawyer may not pay referral fees, but may pay a nonprofit referral service's usual charges and join cooperative marketing that is not a disguised referral service.","whatToDo":"Do not pay for referrals; check that any marketing vendor or networking group is advertising, not a disguised paid referral service.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; the analysis rests on Colo. RPC 1.5(e) and 7.2(b) as worded in 2013, so check the current rules","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Colo. RPC 1.5(e)","Colo. RPC 7.2(b)"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_106_2011.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The lawyer also must use reasonable efforts to ensure that companies purporting to provide advertising of the lawyer's services are not in fact improper referral","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2013-10-21","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee, 106","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_106_2011.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The lawyer also must use reasonable efforts to ensure that companies purporting to provide advertising of the lawyer's services are not in fact improper referral"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark (revised 2013) still listed without withdrawal on the bar's formal opinion index."},{"id":"ct-cba-2013-08","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CT","jurisdictionKey":"connecticut","jurisdictionName":"Connecticut","fips":"09","body":"Connecticut Bar Association, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"Informal Opinion 2013-08","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2013-06-19","dateNote":"approved date","title":"Use of a Call Recording Service","topics":["call-recording","lead-generators","pay-per-lead","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["call-recording","lead-generation"],"holding":"A lawyer may use a pay-per-call service that records prospective-client calls only if the vendor cannot access the recordings and no third party hears them without consent.","text":"A lawyer may use a pay-per-call service that records prospective-client calls only if the vendor cannot access the recordings and no third party hears them without consent.","whatToDo":"If your call-tracking vendor records intake calls, get a contract term that the vendor cannot access recordings, and limit who can listen.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the CBA informal opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6","1.18"],"url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2013-opinions/informal-opinion-2013-08.pdf?sfvrsn=79b21e4e_6","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Pursuant to Rules 1.6 and 1.18, the contract must provide that Yellow Pages will not have access to the recordings","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2013-06-19","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Connecticut Bar Association, Professional Ethics Committee, Informal Opinion 2013-08","url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2013-opinions/informal-opinion-2013-08.pdf?sfvrsn=79b21e4e_6","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Pursuant to Rules 1.6 and 1.18, the contract must provide that Yellow Pages will not have access to the recordings"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: the only CBA opinion on recording prospective-client calls; no later CBA opinion found on the index."},{"id":"ca-lacba-525","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"Los Angeles County Bar Association, Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee","number":"525","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2012-12-06","dateNote":null,"title":"Ethical Duties of Lawyers in Connection with Adverse Comments Published by a Former Client","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may reply publicly to a former client's negative online comment only if the reply reveals no confidences, does not harm the client, and stays restrained.","text":"A lawyer may reply publicly to a former client's negative online comment only if the reply reveals no confidences, does not harm the client, and stays restrained.","whatToDo":"Reply to bad reviews briefly and politely without revealing anything about the client's matter.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on LACBA site and State Bar opinions table; no notice of change found on the bar site. LACBA notes pre-Nov. 2018 opinions cite former rules.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 3-100(A)","Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(e)"],"url":"https://lacba.org/docDownload/2010577","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the attorney may publicly respond to such comments as long as the rebuttal:  (1) does not disclose any confidential information","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2012-12-06","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Los Angeles County Bar Association, Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee, 525","url":"https://lacba.org/docDownload/2010577","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the attorney may publicly respond to such comments as long as the rebuttal:  (1) does not disclose any confidential information"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark (county bar). docDownload link redirects to a signed S3 PDF."},{"id":"nc-ncsb-2010-feo-14","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"NC","jurisdictionKey":"north-carolina","jurisdictionName":"North Carolina","fips":"37","body":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council)","number":"2010 FEO 14","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2012-04-27","dateNote":"adopted date shown on page; opinion is numbered 2010","title":"Use of Search Engine Company's Keyword Advertisements","topics":["competitor-keywords"],"researchTopics":["competitor-keywords"],"holding":"It is dishonest, and a rules violation, for a lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name as a keyword to trigger the lawyer’s own search ads.","text":"It is dishonest, and a rules violation, for a lawyer to buy another lawyer’s name as a keyword to trigger the lawyer’s own search ads.","whatToDo":"Do not bid on any competing lawyer’s name in search-ad campaigns in North Carolina.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; reaffirmed and extended to unique trade names by 2023 FEO 4","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["8.4(c)"],"url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2010-formal-ethics-opinion-14/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to select another lawyer's name as a keyword","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2012-04-27","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"North Carolina State Bar (Ethics Committee; adopted by the State Bar Council), 2010 FEO 14","url":"https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2010-formal-ethics-opinion-14/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to select another lawyer's name as a keyword"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark still controlling in North Carolina on competitor keywords."},{"id":"ct-cba-2012-03","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CT","jurisdictionKey":"connecticut","jurisdictionName":"Connecticut","fips":"09","body":"Connecticut Bar Association, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"Informal Opinion 2012-03","opinionType":"informal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2012-04-25","dateNote":"approved date","title":"Martindale.com Client Review Ratings","topics":["reviews"],"researchTopics":["online-reviews"],"holding":"A lawyer may send clients to rate him on Martindale.com; client-written reviews are not the lawyer's ad unless the lawyer shapes or answers them.","text":"A lawyer may send clients to rate him on Martindale.com; client-written reviews are not the lawyer's ad unless the lawyer shapes or answers them.","whatToDo":"You may ask clients for reviews on third-party sites, but do not write or edit them, and make sure any response you post is accurate.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the CBA informal opinions page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2012/informal_opinion_2012-03.pdf?sfvrsn=9339e03_6","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Obligations under Rule 7.1 and 7.2 arise only when the lawyer has a hand in creating, shaping or publishing online client reviews.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2012-04-25","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Connecticut Bar Association, Professional Ethics Committee, Informal Opinion 2012-03","url":"https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-source/publications/ethics-opinions-informal-opinions/2012/informal_opinion_2012-03.pdf?sfvrsn=9339e03_6","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Obligations under Rule 7.1 and 7.2 arise only when the lawyer has a hand in creating, shaping or publishing online client reviews."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: the CBA's only opinion on client review sites; no later CBA opinion found on the index."},{"id":"vt-vba-2012-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VT","jurisdictionKey":"vermont","jurisdictionName":"Vermont","fips":"50","body":"Vermont Bar Association (advisory ethics opinions; committee name not shown on the opinion)","number":"Opinion 2012-1","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2012","dateNote":"only the year appears on the opinion","title":"[Shared marketing agreement with a realtor and lender]","topics":["fee-sharing","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees","advertising-general"],"holding":"A lawyer may split ad costs with realtors or lenders if payments cover only real marketing costs, the ads imply no partnership, and referrals follow the reciprocal-referral rules.","text":"A lawyer may split ad costs with realtors or lenders if payments cover only real marketing costs, the ads imply no partnership, and referrals follow the reciprocal-referral rules.","whatToDo":"In co-marketing deals, pay only your fair share of actual ad costs, review the ad content, and never suggest you are in business with the partner.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the VBA advisory ethics page","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","5.4"],"url":"https://www.vtbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/12-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The advertisements must not state or imply that the lawyer is in business or partnership with the nonlawyer.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2012","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Vermont Bar Association (advisory ethics opinions; committee name not shown on the opinion), Opinion 2012-1","url":"https://www.vtbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/12-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The advertisements must not state or imply that the lawyer is in business or partnership with the nonlawyer."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: no later VBA opinion on co-marketing found."},{"id":"ca-coprac-2012-186","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC)","number":"2012-186","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2012","dateNote":"Pre-2015 landmark; only the year is shown. Included because it remains California's listed State Bar opinion on social-media advertising.","title":"Social Networking","topics":["social-media","past-results"],"researchTopics":["social-media","past-results"],"holding":"A lawyer's social media posts are advertising when they offer the lawyer's services, such as posting wins and inviting calls, and the ad rules still apply.","text":"A lawyer's social media posts are advertising when they offer the lawyer's services, such as posting wins and inviting calls, and the ad rules still apply.","whatToDo":"Assume posts that mention wins or invite people to hire you are ads; add any required disclaimers and keep them truthful.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on State Bar ethics opinions page; no notice of change found on the bar site. Decided under former rule 1-400 (pre-Nov. 2018 rules).","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["former 1-400","Bus. & Prof. Code 6157-6159.2"],"url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/CAL%202012-186%20%2812-21-12%29.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"restrictions imposed by the professional responsibility rules and standards governing attorney advertising are not relaxed merely because such compliance might be more difficult or awkward","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2012","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), 2012-186","url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/CAL%202012-186%20%2812-21-12%29.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"restrictions imposed by the professional responsibility rules and standards governing attorney advertising are not relaxed merely because such compliance might be more difficult or awkward"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark."},{"id":"va-vsb-leo-1846","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics","number":"LEO 1846","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2010-12-29","dateNote":"committee revised date; original committee opinion February 2, 2009","title":"Is it ethical for a lawyer to become a member of a lead-sharing organization?","topics":["lead-generators","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A lawyer may not join a lead-sharing group, such as a networking club, where membership depends on giving members referrals.","text":"A lawyer may not join a lead-sharing group, such as a networking club, where membership depends on giving members referrals.","whatToDo":"Avoid networking groups that require you to pass a quota of client leads; general professional networking is fine.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6","1.7(a)","5.4","7.1","7.2(c)","7.3(d)"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1846.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"membership in such an organization compromises the lawyer’s independence, potentially creates undisclosed conflicts of interest, and violates solicitation rules","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2010-12-29","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, LEO 1846","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1846.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"membership in such an organization compromises the lawyer’s independence, potentially creates undisclosed conflicts of interest, and violates solicitation rules"}],"note":"Pre-2015; included only because it appears still to be the controlling Virginia opinion on lead-sharing groups (no later LEO on point found). Committee opinion, not Court-approved. Rule numbers are those cited in the opinion (pre-2013 Virginia numbering; 7.3(d) was then the paid-recommendation rule)."},{"id":"co-cba-122","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CO","jurisdictionKey":"colorado","jurisdictionName":"Colorado","fips":"08","body":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee","number":"122","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2010-10-16","dateNote":"amended date; adopted March 20, 2010 per the opinion text (Op. 106 cites March 10, 2010)","title":"The Applicability of Colo. RPC 7.2 to Internet-Based Lawyer Marketing Programs","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms","pay-per-lead"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A lawyer may pay for an online directory that says it is advertising and charges fixed fees, but not a service that recommends lawyers or charges per client hired.","text":"A lawyer may pay for an online directory that says it is advertising and charges fixed fees, but not a service that recommends lawyers or charges per client hired.","whatToDo":"Before joining an online lead or listing service, confirm it is a neutral, labeled directory with a flat fee, not a paid 'referral' that picks lawyers for clients.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; the analysis rests on the Colo. RPC 7.2 text in effect in 2010, so check the current rule","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Colo. RPC 7.1","Colo. RPC 7.2","Colo. RPC 7.2(b)","Colo. RPC 7.3(d)"],"url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_122_2011.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The pivotal point is the distinction between \"on-line directory listings\" and a for-profit \"referral service.\"","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2010-10-16","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Committee, 122","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_122_2011.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The pivotal point is the distinction between \"on-line directory listings\" and a for-profit \"referral service.\""}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: still listed without withdrawal and cross-referenced by Op. 106 as the Colorado opinion on internet marketing programs."},{"id":"mn-lprb-20","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"MN","jurisdictionKey":"minnesota","jurisdictionName":"Minnesota","fips":"27","body":"Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board","number":"Opinion No. 20","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2009-06-18","dateNote":"adopted June 18, 2009; amended October 28, 2022","title":"Use of the Word “Associates” in a Law Firm Name","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"Using \"Associates\" in a firm name is misleading unless at least two lawyers practice there, and \"& Associates\" needs at least three.","text":"Using \"Associates\" in a firm name is misleading unless at least two lawyers practice there, and \"& Associates\" needs at least three.","whatToDo":"Drop \"Associates\" or \"& Associates\" from your firm name unless you have enough practicing lawyers to back it up.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed as Active on the LPRB Board Opinions page; amended October 28, 2022.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1"],"url":"https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-20_compressed.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the use of the phrase “& Associates” in a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2009-06-18","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Opinion No. 20","url":"https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-20_compressed.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the use of the phrase “& Associates” in a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation"}],"note":"Adopted before 2015 but amended in 2022 and still the controlling Minnesota opinion on 'Associates' in firm names. The LPRB index lists no other advertising opinions."},{"id":"ak-akbar-2009-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"AK","jurisdictionKey":"alaska","jurisdictionName":"Alaska","fips":"02","body":"Alaska Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by Board of Governors)","number":"2009-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2009-05-05","dateNote":"Adopted date per Alaska Bar chronological list. Pre-2015 landmark.","title":"Use of Membership in Lawyer Ranking System In Lawyer/Law Firm Advertising","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"Lawyers may mention Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers or similar rankings in ads only in a set format that gives the publication name, date, and practice area.","text":"Lawyers may mention Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers or similar rankings in ads only in a set format that gives the publication name, date, and practice area.","whatToDo":"Write ranking claims as 'Name was selected for inclusion in [Publication] [Year] in [practice area]'.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on Alaska Bar adopted opinions list; no notice of change found on the bar site.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2"],"url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009-2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"so long as the reference includes the publication name, date, and the practice area, if one was specified, in which the lawyer was ranked or","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2009-05-05","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Alaska Bar Association, Ethics Committee (adopted by Board of Governors), 2009-2","url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009-2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"so long as the reference includes the publication name, date, and the practice area, if one was specified, in which the lawyer was ranked or"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark; still Alaska's controlling opinion on ratings in ads."},{"id":"de-dsba-2009-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DE","jurisdictionKey":"delaware","jurisdictionName":"Delaware","fips":"10","body":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Opinion 2009-1","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2009-02-02","dateNote":null,"title":"[Compensation of a law firm's nonlawyer marketing professional]","topics":["fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"A firm may not pay its nonlawyer marketing employee bonuses calculated as a percentage of firm revenues or of revenue from clients the marketer brings in.","text":"A firm may not pay its nonlawyer marketing employee bonuses calculated as a percentage of firm revenues or of revenue from clients the marketer brings in.","whatToDo":"Pay marketing staff and vendors salary or flat fees, not a percentage of the fees they bring in.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the DSBA ethics opinions index","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.2"],"url":"http://media.dsba.org/ethics/pdfs/2009-01.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Compensation of a Law Firm's marketing professional may not be based upon a percentage formula based on total revenues received from new or old clients","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2009-02-02","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 2009-1","url":"http://media.dsba.org/ethics/pdfs/2009-01.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Compensation of a Law Firm's marketing professional may not be based upon a percentage formula based on total revenues received from new or old clients"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark included because the DSBA issued no later opinion on marketing compensation (no opinions 2012-2020 per the index). Quote is from the committee's summary page at the front of the PDF."},{"id":"va-vsb-leo-1842","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics","number":"1842","opinionType":"advisory","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2008-09-30","dateNote":"committee opinion date shown on the PDF","title":"Obligations of a Lawyer Who Receives Confidential Information Via Law Firm Website or Telephone Voicemail","topics":["websites","advertising-general","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["website-disclaimers","advertising-general"],"holding":"Listing an email or phone does not invite secrets, but a website form asking for case details can create duties, so firms should use a clear click-through disclaimer.","text":"Listing an email or phone does not invite secrets, but a website form asking for case details can create duties, so firms should use a clear click-through disclaimer.","whatToDo":"If your website intake form asks for case facts, make visitors click to accept a plain disclaimer saying no lawyer-client relationship or confidentiality is created before they submit.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; the VSB Legal Ethics page still cites LEO 1842 in its current social networking guidance","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["1.6(a)","1.7(a)"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1842.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"including an e-mail address on a law firm’s website or publishing a telephone number in a yellow-page advertisement, without more, is not the solicitation of","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2008-09-30","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, 1842","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1842.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"including an e-mail address on a law firm’s website or publishing a telephone number in a yellow-page advertisement, without more, is not the solicitation of"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: the VSB still cites it on its ethics page (https://vsb.org/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx) for communications with website visitors. It predates any Virginia Rule 1.18 on prospective clients; whether a later rule change affects it was not checked."},{"id":"de-dsba-2008-2","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DE","jurisdictionKey":"delaware","jurisdictionName":"Delaware","fips":"10","body":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics","number":"Opinion 2008-2","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2008-02-29","dateNote":null,"title":"[Advertising \"Super Lawyer\" and \"Best Lawyer\" designations]","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise being named a 'Super Lawyer' or 'Best Lawyer' if the ad states the year and practice area of the designation and otherwise follows the advertising rules.","text":"A lawyer may advertise being named a 'Super Lawyer' or 'Best Lawyer' if the ad states the year and practice area of the designation and otherwise follows the advertising rules.","whatToDo":"When you show a Super Lawyers or Best Lawyers badge, state the year and the practice area it covers.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the DSBA ethics opinions index","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.2","7.3"],"url":"http://media.dsba.org/ethics/pdfs/2008-2.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"as long as the lawyer states the year and particular specialty or area of practice of the designation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2008-02-29","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Delaware State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 2008-2","url":"http://media.dsba.org/ethics/pdfs/2008-2.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"as long as the lawyer states the year and particular specialty or area of practice of the designation"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark included because it is the only DSBA opinion on lawyer ratings and no later one exists."},{"id":"dc-dcbar-342","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DC","jurisdictionKey":"district-of-columbia","jurisdictionName":"District of Columbia","fips":"11","body":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"342","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2007-11","dateNote":"\"Published: November 2007\" shown on the D.C. Bar page; no day given","title":"Participation in Internet-Based Lawyer Referral Services Requiring Payment of Fees","topics":["lawyer-platforms","fee-sharing","lead-generators","pay-per-lead","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["lawyer-platforms","referral-marketing-fees","lead-generation"],"holding":"Lawyers may join online referral services charging flat participation, per-name or per-client fees, if the fee is not a share of legal fees and listings are not misleading.","text":"Lawyers may join online referral services charging flat participation, per-name or per-client fees, if the fee is not a share of legal fees and listings are not misleading.","whatToDo":"Pay online referral or lead services only flat fees, never a share of your legal fee, and check what they say about you.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site (listed on the D.C. Bar Ethics Opinions 210-Present index without a change note)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["5.4","7.1"],"url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-342","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers may participate in both not-for-profit and for-profit lawyer Internet-based referral services where the services require a flat fee for participation","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2007-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee, 342","url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-342","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers may participate in both not-for-profit and for-profit lawyer Internet-based referral services where the services require a flat fee for participation"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: still the controlling D.C. opinion on paid online referral services; relied on in D.C. Op. 369 (2015). Inquiry Nos. 06-01-24 and 06-08-11."},{"id":"or-osb-2007-180","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2007-180","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2007","dateNote":"Year from the opinion number; withdrawn 2018.","title":"Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees","topics":["lead-generators","fee-sharing"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"The Oregon State Bar withdrew this internet-advertising referral-fee opinion in 2018; its text is no longer published.","text":"The Oregon State Bar withdrew this internet-advertising referral-fee opinion in 2018; its text is no longer published.","whatToDo":"Do not rely on this opinion; check current RPC 7.2 and later opinions instead.","opinionStatus":"withdrawn","statusNote":"Marked [WITHDRAWN 2018] on the OSB table of contents and on the posted PDF.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":[],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2007-180.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees [WITHDRAWN 2018]","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2007","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2007-180","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2007-180.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees [WITHDRAWN 2018]"}],"note":"Only the withdrawal notice is posted; the original holding could not be read, so no holding is stated."},{"id":"tx-pec-573","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"TX","jurisdictionKey":"texas","jurisdictionName":"Texas","fips":"48","body":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee","number":"573","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2006-07","dateNote":"month and year only shown on the opinion","title":"[Paying to join an internet service that forwards potential clients' information to paying lawyers]","topics":["lead-generators","lawyer-platforms"],"researchTopics":["lead-generation","lawyer-platforms"],"holding":"A Texas lawyer may pay an online service that forwards potential clients' problems to paying lawyers only if it meets the opinion's conditions, which the lawyer keeps checking.","text":"A Texas lawyer may pay an online service that forwards potential clients' problems to paying lawyers only if it meets the opinion's conditions, which the lawyer keeps checking.","whatToDo":"Before buying leads from an online service, confirm it does not pick lawyers for clients, charges a reasonable advertising fee, does not cap participants, and label your first contact as advertising.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; Texas amended its Part VII advertising rules effective July 1, 2021, so rule numbers cited may have changed","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.03(a)","7.03(b)","7.01-7.07"],"url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-573/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"a lawyer may pay a fee to participate in an internet client-lawyer connection service of the type described in this opinion","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2006-07","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee, 573","url":"https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-573/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"a lawyer may pay a fee to participate in an internet client-lawyer connection service of the type described in this opinion"}],"note":"Read on the Texas Center for Legal Ethics site, which hosts the Committee's full official opinion collection. Pre-2015 landmark included because it is still the Texas Committee's main opinion on paid online lead services and the State Bar's Advertising Review page still links it."},{"id":"dc-dcbar-332","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"DC","jurisdictionKey":"district-of-columbia","jurisdictionName":"District of Columbia","fips":"11","body":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"332","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2005-11","dateNote":"\"Published: November 2005\" shown on the D.C. Bar page; no day given","title":"Firm Names for Solo Practitioners","topics":["trade-names"],"researchTopics":["domain-trade-names"],"holding":"A solo lawyer may use any trade name that is not false or misleading, and using the word \"firm\" is not misleading by itself.","text":"A solo lawyer may use any trade name that is not false or misleading, and using the word \"firm\" is not misleading by itself.","whatToDo":"Choose a firm name that does not mislead clients about the size or nature of your practice.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site (listed on the D.C. Bar Ethics Opinions 210-Present index without a change note)","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1","7.5"],"url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-332","sourceKind":"official","quote":"The use of the word \"firm\" in the firm name does not inherently constitute a misleading representation about a solo practitioner.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2005-11","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee, 332","url":"https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Ethics-Opinions-210-Present/Ethics-Opinion-332","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"The use of the word \"firm\" in the firm name does not inherently constitute a misleading representation about a solo practitioner."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: D.C. opinion on trade/firm names for solo practitioners; no later D.C. opinion on this topic found in the 210-present index. Inquiry No. 05-03-01."},{"id":"va-vsb-lao-a-0114","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"VA","jurisdictionKey":"virginia","jurisdictionName":"Virginia","fips":"51","body":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (former); approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia","number":"A-0114","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":"2005-08-26","dateNote":"date the PDF shows as 'As Approved by the Virginia Supreme Court'","title":"Communications to the Public Involving a Lawyer's Recognition by a Listing in a Publication such as The Best Lawyers in America","topics":["awards-ratings"],"researchTopics":["awards-ratings"],"holding":"A lawyer may advertise a truthful Best Lawyers-type listing, but may not claim to be 'the best', credit the whole firm, or tout a credential anyone can buy.","text":"A lawyer may advertise a truthful Best Lawyers-type listing, but may not claim to be 'the best', credit the whole firm, or tout a credential anyone can buy.","whatToDo":"Name the exact listing and year, describe it in plain words, and do not turn one lawyer's listing into a firm-wide 'best' claim.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"The VSB Legal Ethics page says that in 2018 the committee withdrew 12 Legal Advertising Opinions and that A-0114 is the one that 'remains current and enforceable'.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.1 cmt. [5]"],"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/LAO_0114.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Lawyers may advertise the fact that they are listed in a publication such as The Best Lawyers in America.","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2005-08-26","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Virginia State Bar, Standing Committee on Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (former); approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia, A-0114","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/LAO_0114.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Lawyers may advertise the fact that they are listed in a publication such as The Best Lawyers in America."}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark included because the VSB says it is the only Legal Advertising Opinion still in force (status confirmed on https://vsb.org/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx). The Rule 7.1 text quoted in the opinion is the pre-2013 version; later Virginia rule changes were not checked against it."},{"id":"ca-coprac-2005-168","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"CA","jurisdictionKey":"california","jurisdictionName":"California","fips":"06","body":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC)","number":"2005-168","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2005","dateNote":"Pre-2015 landmark; only the year is shown.","title":"Implied Formation Through Communications Sent via Website","topics":["websites","client-intake"],"researchTopics":["website-disclaimers"],"holding":"A lawyer inviting website questions owes confidentiality unless a plain-language disclaimer defeats visitors' reasonable belief; a bare 'no attorney-client relationship' click-through is not enough.","text":"A lawyer inviting website questions owes confidentiality unless a plain-language disclaimer defeats visitors' reasonable belief; a bare 'no attorney-client relationship' click-through is not enough.","whatToDo":"Put a clear, plain-English warning on web intake forms that what visitors send will not be kept confidential (if that is your policy), not just 'no attorney-client relationship.'","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"Listed on State Bar ethics opinions page; no notice of change found on the bar site. Note: current rule 1.18 (prospective clients) took effect Nov. 1, 2018.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["Evid. Code 917(b)","Evid. Code 951"],"url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/2005_-168_03-0001-wpd-PAW.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"may effectively disclaim owing a duty of confidentiality to web-site visitors only if the disclaimer is in sufficiently plain terms","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2005","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), 2005-168","url":"https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/2005_-168_03-0001-wpd-PAW.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"may effectively disclaim owing a duty of confidentiality to web-site visitors only if the disclaimer is in sufficiently plain terms"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark on website intake disclaimers."},{"id":"or-osb-2005-100","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OR","jurisdictionKey":"oregon","jurisdictionName":"Oregon","fips":"41","body":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee)","number":"2005-100","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2005","dateNote":"Year from the opinion number; withdrawn 2018.","title":"Information about Legal Services: Initiating Contact with Lawyer-Referral Service Clients","topics":["solicitation","fee-sharing","referral-services"],"researchTopics":["solicitation","referral-marketing-fees"],"holding":"The Oregon State Bar withdrew this opinion on lawyers contacting referral-service clients in 2018; its text is no longer published.","text":"The Oregon State Bar withdrew this opinion on lawyers contacting referral-service clients in 2018; its text is no longer published.","whatToDo":"Do not rely on this opinion; check current RPC 7.3 instead.","opinionStatus":"withdrawn","statusNote":"Marked [WITHDRAWN 2018] on the OSB table of contents and on the posted PDF.","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":[],"url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-100.pdf","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Information about Legal Services: Initiating Contact with Lawyer-Referral Service Clients [WITHDRAWN 2018]","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2005","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2005-100","url":"https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-100.pdf","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Information about Legal Services: Initiating Contact with Lawyer-Referral Service Clients [WITHDRAWN 2018]"}],"note":"Only the withdrawal notice is posted; the original holding could not be read."},{"id":"ok-oba-320","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"OK","jurisdictionKey":"oklahoma","jurisdictionName":"Oklahoma","fips":"40","body":"Oklahoma Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee","number":"320","opinionType":"formal","bindingWeight":"advisory-committee","issued":"2004-10-15","dateNote":"'Adopted October 15, 2004'","title":"[Listing jury verdict and settlement amounts in advertising]","topics":["past-results"],"researchTopics":["past-results"],"holding":"Ads may state verdict or settlement amounts if accurate and not confidential, with an equally prominent disclaimer that each case is different.","text":"Ads may state verdict or settlement amounts if accurate and not confidential, with an equally prominent disclaimer that each case is different.","whatToDo":"Before advertising a verdict or settlement, make sure it does not reveal client confidences, check the figure, and add an equally prominent 'each case is different' disclaimer.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"no notice of change found on the bar site; the OBA's undated 'Internet Advertising' FAQ (okbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/internet-ads.pdf, image-only) still cites Ethics Opinion 320 for results disclaimers","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["7.1(a)","7.2","1.6"],"url":"https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-320/","sourceKind":"official","quote":"An attorney may list in an advertisement, specific amounts awarded by jury verdict if the following requirements are met","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":"2004-10-15","effectiveTo":null,"era":"pre-2015-landmark","sources":[{"label":"Oklahoma Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, 320","url":"https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-320/","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"An attorney may list in an advertisement, specific amounts awarded by jury verdict if the following requirements are met"}],"note":"Pre-2015 landmark: no later OBA formal opinion on advertising found (okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-331 through -338 return 404; the 2014 topical index lists nothing later on advertising). The opinion quotes pre-2008 Rule 7.1 text; Oklahoma's current Rule 7.1 wording was not checked against it. Pre-2015 landmark. Its Rule 7.1 quotation predates later amendments; current Oklahoma Rule 7.1 was not checked against it."},{"id":"ky-aac-reg-1","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"KY","jurisdictionKey":"kentucky","jurisdictionName":"Kentucky","fips":"21","body":"Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission","number":"AAC Regulation No. 1","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":null,"dateNote":null,"title":"False, Deceptive and Misleading Advertising","topics":["past-results","testimonials","advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["past-results","testimonials-endorsements","advertising-general"],"holding":"The Commission's regulation lists ad content it may treat as misleading, including actors posing as clients, misleading area codes, and verdict amounts without the case facts.","text":"The Commission's regulation lists ad content it may treat as misleading, including actors posing as clients, misleading area codes, and verdict amounts without the case facts.","whatToDo":"In Kentucky ads, do not show verdict amounts without the case facts, do not let actors look like real clients, and disclose where your office really is.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"listed as current on the Commission's page; no notice of change found","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["SCR 3.130(7.10)","SCR 3.130(7.02)(6)"],"url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/OBC/AACRules/AACReg1.pdf?ver=DEgyhCJ6g8YOpepUngzxIQ%3d%3d","sourceKind":"official","quote":"Statements that may create unjustified expectations include advertisements concerning results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of damage award","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":null,"effectiveTo":null,"era":"unknown","sources":[{"label":"Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1","url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/OBC/AACRules/AACReg1.pdf?ver=DEgyhCJ6g8YOpepUngzxIQ%3d%3d","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"Statements that may create unjustified expectations include advertisements concerning results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of damage award"}],"note":"A Commission regulation (guideline), not an ethics opinion. No adoption or amendment date is shown on the document, so it may predate 2015; included because it is the Commission's current published advertising guidance."},{"id":"ky-aac-reg-14","dataset":"opinions","jurisdiction":"KY","jurisdictionKey":"kentucky","jurisdictionName":"Kentucky","fips":"21","body":"Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission","number":"AAC Regulation No. 14","opinionType":"committee-guideline","bindingWeight":"committee-guideline","issued":null,"dateNote":null,"title":"Advertising of Fees","topics":["advertising-general"],"researchTopics":["advertising-general"],"holding":"A 'no fee unless we win' ad must say the client may owe costs, and a stated contingent-fee percentage must say whether it is before or after costs.","text":"A 'no fee unless we win' ad must say the client may owe costs, and a stated contingent-fee percentage must say whether it is before or after costs.","whatToDo":"Next to any 'no fee unless you win' line, add that clients may owe costs and expenses, and say how the percentage is calculated.","opinionStatus":"in-force","statusNote":"listed as current on the Commission's page; no notice of change found","supersedes":[],"supersededBy":[],"rules":["SCR 3.130(7.10)"],"url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/OBC/AACRules/AACReg14.pdf?ver=wxcQkZxxFsM1iYu7gL_lPQ%3d%3d","sourceKind":"official","quote":"the advertiser must include language stating the client may be responsible for court costs and/or case expenses","status":"P","dateRead":"2026-10-25","lastChecked":"2026-10-25","effectiveFrom":null,"effectiveTo":null,"era":"unknown","sources":[{"label":"Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 14","url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/OBC/AACRules/AACReg14.pdf?ver=wxcQkZxxFsM1iYu7gL_lPQ%3d%3d","kind":"primary","accessed":"2026-10-25","quote":"the advertiser must include language stating the client may be responsible for court costs and/or case expenses"}],"note":"A Commission regulation (guideline), not an ethics opinion. No adoption or amendment date is shown on the document."}]}