Herramienta gratis · Reglas de publicidad
¿Mi anuncio cumple las reglas de mi estado?
Escoja su estado y marque lo que contiene su anuncio. Verá lo que dicen las reglas de ese estado sobre cada punto, si el estado les pide a los abogados presentar los anuncios y de dónde sale cada regla.
Lo que hace y lo que no hace
Lee nuestra biblioteca de reglas de publicidad para abogados de cada estado y de DC, y le muestra el texto de la regla para cada cosa que lleva su anuncio. No dice que su anuncio apruebe o repruebe. Eso solo lo pueden decidir el abogado responsable del anuncio, el colegio de abogados de su estado o su propio asesor legal.
Cada estado empieza con un resumen en español de sus reglas y de la regla de presentación. Debajo va lo que dice nuestra biblioteca sobre cada regla, en español. Las fuentes oficiales enlazadas están en inglés, y esa es la redacción que su abogado debe leer.
Escoja un estado para empezar.
Las reglas, estado por estado
Abra su estado más abajo. Cada sección enumera todo lo que puede contener un anuncio, con la regla de ese estado. Con JavaScript activado, puede escoger su estado y marcar los puntos en su lugar.
Lo que dicen las reglas de su estado
Alabama
En resumen: Sin presentación desde el 1 de enero de 2026, pero se guardan copias 6 años; ubicación de la oficina y avisos específicos en vez de un descargo general; espera de 21 días para el contacto dirigido por lesiones; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas de venta repetidas; la ley de privacidad rige desde el 1 de mayo de 2027.
¿Alabama les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. Desde el 1 de enero de 2026 las reglas no exigen presentación ni aprobación previa. El abogado guarda 6 años una copia de cada comunicación, con su fecha, destinatario y forma de envío, y la entrega sin demora a la Oficina del Asesor General del Colegio de Abogados si la pide (7.2(a)). De las cartas y correos dirigidos según la 7.3(b) se guardan 2 años una muestra, el sobre, si lo hay, y la lista de destinatarios (7.3(e)(1)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. Since January 1, 2026 the rules have no filing or pre-approval. The lawyer keeps a copy of each communication, with its date, recipient and how it was sent, for six years, and gives it promptly to the Bar's Office of General Counsel on request (7.2(a)). For targeted mail and email under 7.3(b), a sample, any envelope and the recipient list are kept two years (7.3(e)(1)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(e)(1) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A testimonial must come from someone with personal, real and direct legal experience with the lawyer, and payment for it must be disclosed (7.2(l)).
The rules bar judges and law-enforcement officers as endorsers unless they were clients (7.2(o)), actors playing a lawyer, or actors playing a client unless non-speaking background (7.2(p)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication may not promise a specific result (7.2(i)).
A stated result needs a description of the type of case, must be objectively verifiable, and must not mislead (7.2(m)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not say or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows (7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Alabama no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not promise a specific result (7.2(i)). A stated result needs a description of the type of case, must be objectively verifiable, and must not mislead (7.2(m)). A testimonial must come from someone with personal, real and direct legal experience with the lawyer, and payment for it must be disclosed (7.2(l)). The rules bar judges and law-enforcement officers as endorsers unless they were clients (7.2(o)), actors playing a lawyer, or actors playing a client unless non-speaking background (7.2(p)). Dramatizations must say "Dramatization -- not (the) (an) actual event" (7.2(n)). A communication may not compare the quality of lawyers' services except as Rule 7.4 provides (7.1(c)). A lawyer may not say or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows (7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
The rules bar judges and law-enforcement officers as endorsers unless they were clients (7.2(o)), actors playing a lawyer, or actors playing a client unless non-speaking background (7.2(p)).
Dramatizations must say "Dramatization -- not (the) (an) actual event" (7.2(n)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
Any disclosure, disclaimer or other statement the rules require must be made in each language used in the communication. Saying a lawyer speaks a language does not by itself require one in that language (7.2(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(e) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(e) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Alabama no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not promise a specific result (7.2(i)). A stated result needs a description of the type of case, must be objectively verifiable, and must not mislead (7.2(m)). A testimonial must come from someone with personal, real and direct legal experience with the lawyer, and payment for it must be disclosed (7.2(l)). The rules bar judges and law-enforcement officers as endorsers unless they were clients (7.2(o)), actors playing a lawyer, or actors playing a client unless non-speaking background (7.2(p)). Dramatizations must say "Dramatization -- not (the) (an) actual event" (7.2(n)). A communication may not compare the quality of lawyers' services except as Rule 7.4 provides (7.1(c)). A lawyer may not say or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows (7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Alabama no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication may not compare the quality of lawyers' services except as Rule 7.4 provides (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(m) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(l) (effective January 1, 2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer must not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services (7.2(h)). Allowed: the usual costs of permitted communications; the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer-referral service or legal-aid agency recognized by the Office of General Counsel; sponsorship fees and charitable contributions; non-exclusive referral agreements disclosed to the client; and nominal gifts of appreciation not intended as compensation (7.2(h)(1)-(5)). A lawyer may not pay for another firm's communication unless the two have agreed to work together and jointly represent clients in that matter (7.2(h)(1)). A lawyer must not manipulate or buy search results to divert a prospective client (7.2(r)). The rules do not name lead generators.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alabama: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(h) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(h)(2) (effective January 1, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, Appendix text of Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(h)(4) (effective January 1, 2026)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Alabama. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Alaska
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; los testimonios no están prohibidos; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas de venta; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Alaska les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar los anuncios antes de usarlos. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado anunciarse, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules do not require ads to be filed or reviewed before use. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer advertise subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials that state recovery amounts need the clients' informed consent (Ethics Opinion 2020-2).
Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
An ad is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, creates an unjustified expectation about results, or makes a comparison that cannot be factually substantiated (7.1(a)-(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a "specialist" or "certified" unless an ABA-accredited body granted the certification and is named (7.4(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Alaska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, creates an unjustified expectation about results, or makes a comparison that cannot be factually substantiated (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a "specialist" or "certified" unless an ABA-accredited body granted the certification and is named (7.4(b)). Testimonials that state recovery amounts need the clients' informed consent (Ethics Opinion 2020-2). A ranking is cited with the publication name, date and practice area (Opinion 2009-2). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Alaska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, creates an unjustified expectation about results, or makes a comparison that cannot be factually substantiated (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a "specialist" or "certified" unless an ABA-accredited body granted the certification and is named (7.4(b)). Testimonials that state recovery amounts need the clients' informed consent (Ethics Opinion 2020-2). A ranking is cited with the publication name, date and practice area (Opinion 2009-2). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Alaska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, creates an unjustified expectation about results, or makes a comparison that cannot be factually substantiated (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a "specialist" or "certified" unless an ABA-accredited body granted the certification and is named (7.4(b)). Testimonials that state recovery amounts need the clients' informed consent (Ethics Opinion 2020-2). A ranking is cited with the publication name, date and practice area (Opinion 2009-2). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Alaska no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
An ad is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, creates an unjustified expectation about results, or makes a comparison that cannot be factually substantiated (7.1(a)-(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for a recommendation, except to pay the reasonable cost of ads, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, the price of a practice sold under 1.17, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.2(b)). The comment allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Alaska: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System) · Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (Alaska Court System)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Alaska. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Arizona
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y datos de contacto de un abogado o firma responsable en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; se permiten honorarios de referencia y firmas de propiedad de no abogados; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Arizona les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. El Colegio de Abogados del estado dice que no tiene que revisarlos primero, aunque ofrece una revisión voluntaria. No es obligatorio guardar copias, pero se considera buena idea. Las Reglas Éticas 7.1 a 7.5 no contienen ninguna cláusula de presentación.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required. The State Bar says it does not have to review ads first, though a voluntary review is available. Keeping copies is not required but is called a good idea. ERs 7.1-7.5 contain no filing clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: presentación o revisión de anuncios · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless the lawyer meets Supreme Court Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the bar says 'specialize' is allowed if true.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Arizona no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (ER 7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless the lawyer meets Supreme Court Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the bar says 'specialize' is allowed if true. ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Arizona no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (ER 7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless the lawyer meets Supreme Court Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the bar says 'specialize' is allowed if true. ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (ER 7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Arizona no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (ER 7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless the lawyer meets Supreme Court Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the bar says 'specialize' is allowed if true. ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Arizona no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Arizona no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (ER 7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless the lawyer meets Supreme Court Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the bar says 'specialize' is allowed if true. ERs 7.1-7.5 have no clause on testimonials or past-result disclaimers: the bar says no disclaimer is required but recommends one, and a former client's consent is needed to identify the case.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.1 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2023) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ) · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
ER 7.2 is reserved, so Arizona has no rule banning payment for a recommendation. The State Bar says lawyers may now pay referral fees to anyone, but cannot thank a referral source without the client's informed consent. Nonlawyer-owned firms (alternative business structures) are licensed under Supreme Court rules.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Arizona: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42, ER 7.2 (Arizona Court Rules, official rules host, eff. Jan. 1, 2021) · Arizona Supreme Court, Order R-20-0030 (Aug. 27, 2020), amending ERs 7.1-7.5 eff. Jan. 1, 2021 · State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Best Practices: ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 (FAQ)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Arizona. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Arkansas
En resumen: No se encontró una ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones; la mayoría de las reglas de Arkansas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Arkansas les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Marcada D: aún no hemos leído en una fuente oficial la regla propia de Arkansas sobre la presentación de anuncios, así que se aplica la norma predeterminada de la Regla Modelo de la ABA hasta que lo hagamos: sin presentación ni revisión de los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Marked D: we haven’t read Arkansas’s own rule on filing ads at an official source, so the ABA Model Rule default applies until we do: no filing or review of ads.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: presentación o revisión de anuncios · ABA Model Rule 7.2(a)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto;
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
«Especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Arkansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Arkansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Español u otro idioma
Marked D: we haven’t read Arkansas’s own rules on ads in other languages at an official source, so our default applies until we do: every required statement appears in each language the ad uses.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · ABA Model Rule 7.1
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Arkansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Arkansas no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Arkansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
Marcado D: se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que se revise el texto del estado. Los abogados pueden pagar costos razonables de publicidad y los cargos habituales de un servicio de referidos calificado, nunca por una recomendación; los generadores de clientes potenciales se permiten solo si no recomiendan al abogado, no dan a entender una recomendación ni dividen honorarios.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Arkansas: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · ABA Model Rule 7.2, comment [5]
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Arkansas. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
California
En resumen: Sin presentación, pero se guardan copias 1 año; un abogado o firma de California y la ciudad de la oficina en cada anuncio; las imágenes de dinero y lesiones se presumen engañosas en los medios electrónicos; demandas de consumidores por anuncios engañosos; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; ley de privacidad en vigor.
¿California les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. Quien paga un anuncio guarda una copia fiel y correcta durante 1 año (B&P 6159.1). Tras la notificación de una queja, el anunciante tiene 9 días para retirar el anuncio voluntariamente; después de que el Colegio de Abogados halle pruebas sustanciales, un anuncio en medios electrónicos se retira en 72 horas; en otros medios, el aviso de retiro vence en 72 horas y el retiro en 30 días (B&P 6158.4).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required. The person who pays for an ad keeps a true and correct copy for one year (B&P 6159.1). After a complaint is served, the advertiser has nine days to withdraw the ad voluntarily, and after a State Bar finding of substantial evidence an electronic-media ad is withdrawn within 72 hours; for other media, notice of withdrawal is due in 72 hours and withdrawal within 30 days (B&P 6158.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Business and Professions Code 6159.1, State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6158.4(a), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Rule 7.1 comment [4] says a testimonial or endorsement can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same results.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
An ad may not contain a guarantee or warranty of success, a claim of immediate cash or quick settlement, an impersonation, an undisclosed dramatization, a spokesperson without a disclosed title, misleading statements about skills, experience or record, or an award that comes with membership or a fee (B&P 6157.2(a)).
Rule 7.1 comment [4] says a testimonial or endorsement can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same results.
In electronic media (television, radio or computer networks), a message about a case result shown out of context, displays of injuries or accident scenes, and references to money received or potential recovery are presumed false or misleading (6158.1); portrayed results need either the facts or a statement that results depend on the facts of that case (6158.3).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say "certified specialist" only if certified by the Board of Legal Specialization or another State Bar-accredited entity, with the certifier named (Rule 7.4(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
An ad may not contain a guarantee or warranty of success, a claim of immediate cash or quick settlement, an impersonation, an undisclosed dramatization, a spokesperson without a disclosed title, misleading statements about skills, experience or record, or an award that comes with membership or a fee (B&P 6157.2(a)).
Contingent-fee ads must say whether the client owes costs if there is no recovery (6157.2(a)(4);
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
An ad may not contain a guarantee or warranty of success, a claim of immediate cash or quick settlement, an impersonation, an undisclosed dramatization, a spokesperson without a disclosed title, misleading statements about skills, experience or record, or an award that comes with membership or a fee (B&P 6157.2(a)).
In electronic media (television, radio or computer networks), a message about a case result shown out of context, displays of injuries or accident scenes, and references to money received or potential recovery are presumed false or misleading (6158.1); portrayed results need either the facts or a statement that results depend on the facts of that case (6158.3).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
Español u otro idioma
A communication may not state or imply the lawyer can provide services in a language other than English unless the lawyer can actually do so, or the communication also states, in the language of the communication, the employment title of the person who speaks it (Rule 7.1 comment [5]). An immigration ad in another language must carry the required licensee statement in that language (B&P 6157.5(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [5] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court) · Business and Professions Code 6157.5(b), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
An ad may not contain a guarantee or warranty of success, a claim of immediate cash or quick settlement, an impersonation, an undisclosed dramatization, a spokesperson without a disclosed title, misleading statements about skills, experience or record, or an award that comes with membership or a fee (B&P 6157.2(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de California no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Rule 7.1 comment [4] says a testimonial or endorsement can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same results.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(1), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · Business and Professions Code 6157.2(a)(6), State Bar Act (2026), as published by the State Bar of California · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, promise or give anything of value to a person to recommend or secure the lawyer's services, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal services plan or a qualified lawyer referral service (one run under the State Bar's minimum standards), a practice sale, non-exclusive reciprocal referral arrangements the client is told about, and a gift after a recommendation led to hiring if not promised in advance (Rule 7.2(b)). Employees, agents and vendors providing marketing services may be paid (7.2 comment [3]). A lawyer referral service must be State Bar certified (B&P 6155(a)(1)), and anyone may sue over an uncertified service for $5,000 to $100,000 per violation or three times actual damages (6156.5). A San Diego County Bar Association ethics opinion (2019-2) found that a for-profit program that collects a flat fee and keeps a marketing fee of about 20 to 30 percent is fee-sharing and not a certified service.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de California: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court) · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court) · California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(5) (State Bar of California; rules approved by the California Supreme Court)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre California. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Colorado
En resumen: Sin presentación, pero las solicitaciones dirigidas se guardan 5 años; un abogado o firma responsable con datos de contacto; prohibición legal de 30 días del contacto dirigido por lesiones; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas de venta ilegales; ley de privacidad en vigor desde julio de 2023.
¿Colorado les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar la publicidad de antemano. El abogado guarda 5 años una copia o grabación de cada solicitación dirigida, y un sobre de muestra (Regla 7.3(f)(3)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval is required for advertising. A lawyer must keep a copy or recording of each targeted solicitation, and a sample envelope, for five years (Rule 7.3(f)(3)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.3(f)(3) (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.2(a) (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause;
Rule 7.1 applies to testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Reporting past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same result for other clients (7.1 cmt [3]); unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can mislead (7.1 cmt [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names that body (Rule 7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Colorado no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may contain a false or misleading statement (Rule 7.1). Reporting past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same result for other clients (7.1 cmt [3]); unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can mislead (7.1 cmt [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names that body (Rule 7.2(c)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause; Rule 7.1 applies to testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Colorado no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may contain a false or misleading statement (Rule 7.1). Reporting past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same result for other clients (7.1 cmt [3]); unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can mislead (7.1 cmt [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names that body (Rule 7.2(c)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause; Rule 7.1 applies to testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communication) applies to an ad in any language. A lawyer's foreign-language ability may be publicized (7.2 cmt [1]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.2 cmt [1] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Colorado no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may contain a false or misleading statement (Rule 7.1). Reporting past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same result for other clients (7.1 cmt [3]); unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can mislead (7.1 cmt [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names that body (Rule 7.2(c)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause; Rule 7.1 applies to testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
La ley de IA reescrita de Colorado entra en vigor el 1 de enero de 2027 y ya no incluye los servicios legales entre sus decisiones trascendentales (SB 26-189).
Colorado General Assembly, SB 26-189 · Arnold & Porter on Colorado's narrowed AI law (July 2026)
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Reporting past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of the same result for other clients (7.1 cmt [3]); unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can mislead (7.1 cmt [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, the price of a practice sale, non-exclusive reciprocal referrals the client is told about, and nominal thank-you gifts (Rule 7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer or imply it is making the referral without payment (7.2 cmt [5]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Colorado: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.2(b) (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.2(b)(2) (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020) · Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2020(29), Colo. RPC 7.2 cmt [5] (Colorado Judicial Branch PDF; adopted Sept. 10, 2020)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Colorado. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Connecticut
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan en el primer uso o antes (sin cargo) y los dominios se listan cada trimestre; nombre y contacto de un abogado de Connecticut en cada anuncio; espera de 40 días para el contacto por lesiones; grabación de llamadas con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por mensajes grabados de venta; ley de privacidad con reglas sobre datos de salud.
¿Connecticut les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Se presenta una copia de cada anuncio al Comité Disciplinario Estatal antes de su primer uso o cuando se use por primera vez (Libro de Práctica 2-28A(a); Regla 7.2(b)(2)). La presentación no tiene cargo; una opinión consultiva anticipada cuesta $100 (2-28B). Los nombres de dominio se listan cada trimestre. No se necesita aprobación previa. Se guarda una copia de cada anuncio, con cuándo y dónde salió, durante 3 años después del último uso (Regla 7.2(b)(1)).
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan al usarlos por primera vez o antes. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
File a copy of each ad with the Statewide Grievance Committee before or when it is first used (Practice Book 2-28A(a); Rule 7.2(b)(2)). Filing has no fee; an advance advisory opinion costs $100 (2-28B). Domain names are listed quarterly. Prior approval is not needed. Keep a copy of each ad, with when and where it ran, for 3 years after last use (Rule 7.2(b)(1)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Sec. 2-28A(a) (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(b) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The commentary says a truthful report of results may mislead unless it has a disclaimer that the result rests on that case's facts, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless certified by a board approved by the Superior Court rules committee or an ABA-accredited body, which is named (7.2(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
A quoted fee must be honored 90 days (7.2(g)).
An ad with fee information says whether the client pays court costs and expenses (7.2(f)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Connecticut no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). The commentary says a truthful report of results may mislead unless it has a disclaimer that the result rests on that case's facts, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless certified by a board approved by the Superior Court rules committee or an ABA-accredited body, which is named (7.2(d)). A quoted fee must be honored 90 days (7.2(g)). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Español u otro idioma
Filings in a foreign language include an accurate English translation (Practice Book 2-28A(a)). The Rules of Professional Conduct have no other clause on ads in other languages; the ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Sec. 2-28A(a) (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Connecticut no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). The commentary says a truthful report of results may mislead unless it has a disclaimer that the result rests on that case's facts, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless certified by a board approved by the Superior Court rules committee or an ABA-accredited body, which is named (7.2(d)). A quoted fee must be honored 90 days (7.2(g)). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Connecticut no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
The commentary says a truthful report of results may mislead unless it has a disclaimer that the result rests on that case's facts, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless certified by a board approved by the Superior Court rules committee or an ABA-accredited body, which is named (7.2(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.1 commentary (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(d) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not pay or promise anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, the usual charges of a not-for-profit or qualified referral service, a practice sale, non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice, and a nominal thank-you gift of no more than two per year to any recipient (7.2(c)). The commentary puts the gift cap at $50. Internet client-matching services are allowed if they otherwise comply with the rules (7.2(h)). CBA Informal Opinion 18-05 says a nominal gift for a referral does not violate the rules.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Connecticut: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(c) (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Connecticut Judicial Branch) · Connecticut Practice Book (2026 ed.), Rule 7.2(c)(5) (Connecticut Judicial Branch)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Connecticut. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Delaware
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; reglas de grabación mixtas (dos leyes difieren); demandas privadas por infracciones de telemercadeo; Ley de Privacidad de Datos Personales en vigor.
¿Delaware les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar de antemano los anuncios de abogados. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3. No se fija ningún cargo.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules require no filing or advance review of lawyer ads. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer advertise through written, recorded or electronic communication, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3. No fee is set.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Ads may not be false or misleading, and past-result claims that create unjustified expectations of the same results for other clients may be misleading (7.1 and comment [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Delaware no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads may not be false or misleading, and past-result claims that create unjustified expectations of the same results for other clients may be misleading (7.1 and comment [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). A "Super Lawyer" or "Best Lawyer" designation may be advertised if the ad states the year and practice area (DSBA Ethics Op. 2008-2). The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Delaware no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads may not be false or misleading, and past-result claims that create unjustified expectations of the same results for other clients may be misleading (7.1 and comment [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). A "Super Lawyer" or "Best Lawyer" designation may be advertised if the ad states the year and practice area (DSBA Ethics Op. 2008-2). The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt [2] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Delaware no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads may not be false or misleading, and past-result claims that create unjustified expectations of the same results for other clients may be misleading (7.1 and comment [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). A "Super Lawyer" or "Best Lawyer" designation may be advertised if the ad states the year and practice area (DSBA Ethics Op. 2008-2). The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Delaware no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Ads may not be false or misleading, and past-result claims that create unjustified expectations of the same results for other clients may be misleading (7.1 and comment [3]).
A "Super Lawyer" or "Best Lawyer" designation may be advertised if the ad states the year and practice area (DSBA Ethics Op. 2008-2).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [3] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, and the price of a practice sold under Rule 1.17 (7.2(b)). Comment [5] lets a lawyer pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and its communications meet Rule 7.1. Marketing staff may not be paid a percentage of revenue (DSBA Op. 2009-1).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Delaware: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts) · Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt [5] (Delaware Supreme Court, hosted by Delaware Courts)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Delaware. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Distrito de Columbia
En resumen: Sin presentación; sin cláusula que exija nombre o descargo en cada anuncio; sin período de espera, pero se prohíbe el contacto en persona con quien no puede juzgar con razonamiento; los veredictos y las recomendaciones necesitan aclaraciones; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por fraude telefónico; sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Distrito de Columbia les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar los anuncios. La Regla 7.1 limita los anuncios solo con la prohibición de declaraciones falsas o engañosas.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules do not require ads to be filed or reviewed. Rule 7.1 limits ads only by the ban on false or misleading statements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: presentación o revisión de anuncios · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Comment [1] says damage-award amounts, verdict records and client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, can mislead.
Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [1] says damage-award amounts, verdict records and client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, can mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
The rules have no specialist-certification clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Distrito de Columbia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or an assertion about the lawyer or services that cannot be substantiated (7.1(a)). Comment [1] says damage-award amounts, verdict records and client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, can mislead. Comparisons with other lawyers are misleading if they cannot be substantiated. Testimonials are not banned. The rules have no specialist-certification clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Distrito de Columbia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or an assertion about the lawyer or services that cannot be substantiated (7.1(a)). Comment [1] says damage-award amounts, verdict records and client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, can mislead. Comparisons with other lawyers are misleading if they cannot be substantiated. Testimonials are not banned. The rules have no specialist-certification clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(a)) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Distrito de Columbia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or an assertion about the lawyer or services that cannot be substantiated (7.1(a)). Comment [1] says damage-award amounts, verdict records and client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, can mislead. Comparisons with other lawyers are misleading if they cannot be substantiated. Testimonials are not banned. The rules have no specialist-certification clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Distrito de Columbia no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comparisons with other lawyers are misleading if they cannot be substantiated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not pay money or anything of material value for a recommendation, except for ad costs, the usual and reasonable fees of a legal service plan or lawyer referral service, a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.1(c)). D.C. Bar Opinion 342 (2007) allows flat fees to internet referral services. Opinion 369 (2015) allows a percentage of fees to a referral service only for litigation matters under Rule 5.4(a)(5) or as the service's usual fees.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Distrito de Columbia: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals rules, published by the D.C. Bar) · D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 342 (2007) (ethics opinion)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Distrito de Columbia. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Florida
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan al menos 20 días antes del primer uso ($250; $750 si es tarde); ciudad o condado de la oficina en cada anuncio; espera de 30 días para el contacto escrito por lesiones; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por mensajes y llamadas; la Carta de Derechos Digitales solo alcanza a controladores con ingresos de $1.000 millones.
¿Florida les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
El abogado presenta una copia de cada anuncio al Colegio de Abogados de Florida al menos 20 días antes del primer uso, con un cargo (Regla 4-7.19(a), (h)). El Colegio lo evalúa en 15 días (4-7.19(b)). Las páginas del Colegio fijan el cargo en $250 por una presentación a tiempo y $750 por una tardía, para presentaciones desde el 1 de julio de 2026. Quedan exentos de presentación: los sitios web de abogados, los anuncios limitados al contenido listado en la Regla 4-7.16, las comunicaciones pedidas por un cliente potencial y los demás casos de la Regla 4-7.20. Se guarda una copia o grabación durante 3 años después del último uso (4-7.19(j)).
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan antes de usarlos por primera vez. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
A lawyer files a copy of each ad with The Florida Bar at least 20 days before first use, with a fee (Rule 4-7.19(a), (h)). The Bar evaluates within 15 days (4-7.19(b)). The Bar's pages set the fee at $250 for a timely filing and $750 for a late one, for filings on or after July 1, 2026. Exempt from filing: lawyer websites, ads limited to the content listed in Rule 4-7.16, communications requested by a prospective client, and the other items in Rule 4-7.20. Keep a copy or recording for 3 years after last use (4-7.19(j)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.19(a) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.19(b) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A testimonial must be the person's actual experience, represent what clients generally experience, not be written by the lawyer, not be paid for, and carry a disclaimer that the client may not obtain the same or similar results (4-7.13(b)(9)).
A celebrity's voice or image is barred unless a current or former client's testimonial or a local announcer who gives no endorsement (4-7.15(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
References to past results must be objectively verifiable, and a prediction or guaranty of results is deceptive (Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2)).
A testimonial must be the person's actual experience, represent what clients generally experience, not be written by the lawyer, not be paid for, and carry a disclaimer that the client may not obtain the same or similar results (4-7.13(b)(9)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
"Board certified" requires certification by the Florida Bar plan or an ABA- or Bar-accredited program, with the area and certifier named (4-7.14(a)(4)).
"Specialist" or "expert" requires such certification or objectively verifiable education, training, experience or substantial involvement (4-7.14(a)(5)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Fee claims must disclose all fees and expenses the client might owe (4-7.14(a)(7)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Florida no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: References to past results must be objectively verifiable, and a prediction or guaranty of results is deceptive (Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2)). Comparisons and words that characterize a lawyer's skills, experience, reputation or record must be objectively verifiable (4-7.13(b)(3)). A testimonial must be the person's actual experience, represent what clients generally experience, not be written by the lawyer, not be paid for, and carry a disclaimer that the client may not obtain the same or similar results (4-7.13(b)(9)). "Board certified" requires certification by the Florida Bar plan or an ABA- or Bar-accredited program, with the area and certifier named (4-7.14(a)(4)). "Specialist" or "expert" requires such certification or objectively verifiable education, training, experience or substantial involvement (4-7.14(a)(5)). A celebrity's voice or image is barred unless a current or former client's testimonial or a local announcer who gives no endorsement (4-7.15(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Español u otro idioma
Words or statements the rules require must appear in the same language as the ad, and in each language if the ad uses more than one (Rule 4-7.12(c)). A filing must include an accurate English translation of any non-English part of the ad (4-7.19(h)(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.12(c) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.19(h)(4) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
A celebrity's voice or image is barred unless a current or former client's testimonial or a local announcer who gives no endorsement (4-7.15(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Florida no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comparisons and words that characterize a lawyer's skills, experience, reputation or record must be objectively verifiable (4-7.13(b)(3)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1)-(2) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(1) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.13(b)(3) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer, except the reasonable cost of permitted advertising, the usual charges of a lawyer referral service, lawyer directory, qualifying provider or other legal service organization, and a practice purchase (Rule 4-7.17(b)). A nonlawyer may not pay any part of a lawyer's ad cost (4-7.17(c)). A lawyer may use a qualifying provider (which includes a tips or leads generator) only if it meets Rule 4-7.22(d), including: no fee-sharing, annual list of participating lawyers to the Bar, and lawyers from at least 4 different firms. The lawyer reports to the Bar within 15 days of joining or leaving (4-7.22(e)). Ethics Opinion 18-1 says a fee set as a percentage of the lawyer's fee, or tied to the success or value of the case, is an improper division of fees.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Florida: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.17(b) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.17(c) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org) · Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.22(b)(4) (Florida Supreme Court rules, Chapter 4, RRTFB Oct. 22, 2026, floridabar.org)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Florida. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Georgia
En resumen: Sin presentación según las reglas reformadas el 1 de marzo de 2026; nombre y datos de contacto de un abogado o firma responsable; espera de 30 días para el contacto escrito por lesiones; los testimonios no están prohibidos; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones; algunas reglas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Georgia les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.3, reformadas con vigencia desde el 1 de marzo de 2026, no exigen presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano (las Reglas 7.4 y 7.5 están reservadas). El texto reformado no fija ningún plazo para guardar los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required by Rules 7.1-7.3 as amended effective March 1, 2026 (7.4 and 7.5 are reserved). The amended text sets no record-keeping period for ads.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no clause banning testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [3] to 7.1 says reporting results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer who is a specialist by experience, training or education, or is certified by a recognized and bona fide professional entity, may say so if not false or misleading (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Georgia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). A lawyer who is a specialist by experience, training or education, or is certified by a recognized and bona fide professional entity, may say so if not false or misleading (7.2(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says reporting results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding. The rules have no clause banning testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Georgia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). A lawyer who is a specialist by experience, training or education, or is certified by a recognized and bona fide professional entity, may say so if not false or misleading (7.2(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says reporting results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding. The rules have no clause banning testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [1] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Georgia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). A lawyer who is a specialist by experience, training or education, or is certified by a recognized and bona fide professional entity, may say so if not false or misleading (7.2(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says reporting results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding. The rules have no clause banning testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Georgia no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [3] to 7.1 says reporting results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, usual fees of a lawyer referral service, fees of a bar-operated nonprofit referral service (which may be a percentage of the fee, if the listed conditions are met), legal service plans, a practice sale, reciprocal referral agreements, and nominal gifts (7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay for leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and the payment fits Rules 1.5 and 5.4 (7.2 cmt. [5]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Georgia: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(3) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026) · Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6)-(7) (Supreme Court of Georgia order S24U0172, Nov. 18, 2025, eff. Mar. 1, 2026)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Georgia. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Hawái
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre de un abogado responsable en cada anuncio; espera de 30 días para el contacto por lesiones; los testimonios no están prohibidos; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por telemercadeo; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Hawái les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar de antemano los anuncios ni las solicitaciones, y la Regla 7.2 no tiene cláusula sobre guardar registros. La Regla 7.2(a) permite anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules have no filing or pre-review requirement for ads or solicitations, and no record-keeping clause in Rule 7.2. Rule 7.2(a) allows advertising by written, recorded or electronic communication, subject to 7.1 and 7.3.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
No clause bans testimonials or endorsements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)).
Comment [3] says a truthful report of past results may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may state specialist certification by a named organization if the ad names it and carries the Supreme Court of Hawai'i statement (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Hawái no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials or endorsements. A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [3] says a truthful report of past results may mislead. A lawyer may state specialist certification by a named organization if the ad names it and carries the Supreme Court of Hawai'i statement (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Hawái no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials or endorsements. A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [3] says a truthful report of past results may mislead. A lawyer may state specialist certification by a named organization if the ad names it and carries the Supreme Court of Hawai'i statement (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 comment [2] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Hawái no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials or endorsements. A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [3] says a truthful report of past results may mislead. A lawyer may state specialist certification by a named organization if the ad names it and carries the Supreme Court of Hawai'i statement (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Hawái no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services. Exceptions: reasonable ad costs; the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or qualified legal assistance organization (including a percentage fee used only for operating costs and public service); and buying a practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Hawái: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Hawai'i State Judiciary) · Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(3) (Hawai'i State Judiciary)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Hawái. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Idaho
En resumen: Sin presentación, con copias guardadas 2 años; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; los testimonios no están prohibidos; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas por ventas telefónicas solo de compradores que sufrieron daños; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Idaho les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni revisión previa. El abogado guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 2 años después de su último uso, con un registro de cuándo y dónde salió (7.2(b)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or prior review. A lawyer keeps a copy or recording of each ad for two years after its last use, with a record of when and where it ran (7.2(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho State Bar, Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct page
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements.
A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an organization approved by the Idaho State Bar certified it and the ad names that organization (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Idaho no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an organization approved by the Idaho State Bar certified it and the ad names that organization (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Idaho no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an organization approved by the Idaho State Bar certified it and the ad names that organization (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be disseminated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 comment [2] (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Idaho no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an organization approved by the Idaho State Bar certified it and the ad names that organization (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Idaho no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services. Exceptions: ad costs; the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service (one approved by an appropriate regulatory authority); buying a practice; and non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements with client notice (7.2(c)). The comment lets a lawyer pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its communications fit 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Idaho: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF) · Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 comment (Idaho State Bar, accessible PDF)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Idaho. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Illinois
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina en cada anuncio; no se reconoce la certificación de especialista; reglas desde julio de 2025 para los generadores de contactos («servicios de conexión intermediarios»); grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas por marcadores automáticos con $500 por infracción; sin ley integral de privacidad, pero con una ley biométrica.
¿Illinois les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.5 no exigen presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. El abogado que usa un servicio de conexión intermediario (un directorio, generador de contactos o servicio de emparejamiento) debe hacer una verificación diligente antes de unirse y mientras participa (7.2(c)); el comentario [8] dice que es inicial y anual.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required by Rules 7.1-7.5. A lawyer who uses an intermediary connecting service (a directory, lead generator or matching service) must do due diligence before joining and while taking part (7.2(c)); comment [8] says initial and annual.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2(a) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Nuestro resumen de Illinois no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties (7.4(b)). 'Certified', 'specialist' or 'expert' may be used only to identify an actual certificate, award or recognition, which must be truthful and verifiable and must state that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize specialty certifications and that the award is not required to practice law in Illinois (7.4(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties (7.4(b)). 'Certified', 'specialist' or 'expert' may be used only to identify an actual certificate, award or recognition, which must be truthful and verifiable and must state that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize specialty certifications and that the award is not required to practice law in Illinois (7.4(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Illinois no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties (7.4(b)). 'Certified', 'specialist' or 'expert' may be used only to identify an actual certificate, award or recognition, which must be truthful and verifiable and must state that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize specialty certifications and that the award is not required to practice law in Illinois (7.4(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Illinois no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties (7.4(b)). 'Certified', 'specialist' or 'expert' may be used only to identify an actual certificate, award or recognition, which must be truthful and verifiable and must state that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize specialty certifications and that the award is not required to practice law in Illinois (7.4(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2 cmt. [2] (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Illinois no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication (7.1). The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties (7.4(b)). 'Certified', 'specialist' or 'expert' may be used only to identify an actual certificate, award or recognition, which must be truthful and verifiable and must state that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize specialty certifications and that the award is not required to practice law in Illinois (7.4(c)). Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Illinois no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [3] to 7.1 says results reports and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead, and a disclaimer may preclude that finding.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.1 (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.4(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements where the client is told (7.2(b)). A lawyer may accept connections from, and pay the usual charges of, an intermediary connecting service (lead generator, directory, matching or referral service) if the lawyer discloses the relationship and takes reasonable steps to check it meets the conditions (7.2(c)). Except for bar association and legal aid services, the service's charges may not depend on the outcome or be a percentage of fees, and it may not recommend the lawyer (7.2(c)(8)). A reasonable per-hire connecting fee is allowed (7.2 cmt. [7]). In effect since July 1, 2025.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Illinois: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2(b) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2(c) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026) · Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, Rule 7.2(c)(8) (Illinois Supreme Court Rules, signed full PDF, current Oct. 21, 2026)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Illinois. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Indiana
En resumen: Los anuncios no se presentan, pero las solicitaciones dirigidas sí ($50); copias de los anuncios guardadas 6 años; nombre y dirección de la oficina; espera de 30 días; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; Ley de Protección de Datos del Consumidor en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2026.
¿Indiana les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios no se presentan. El abogado guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 6 años después de que sale (7.2(c)). Las solicitaciones dirigidas, escritas, grabadas o electrónicas, se presentan a la Comisión Disciplinaria de la Corte Suprema de Indiana al enviarlas o antes, con un cargo de $50, y la lista de destinatarios se guarda al menos 1 año (7.3(c)). Lo presentado está abierto a inspección pública.
Según nuestro resumen, solo se presentan las solicitudes dirigidas (cartas o correos a posibles clientes). Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads are not filed. The lawyer keeps a copy or recording of each ad for six years after it runs (7.2(c)). Targeted written, recorded or electronic solicitations are filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission at or before sending, with a $50 filing fee, and the recipient list is kept at least one year (7.3(c)). The filings are open to public inspection.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such.
Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such.
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified by a body accredited by the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education, which is named in the communication (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Indiana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such. A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified by a body accredited by the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education, which is named in the communication (7.4(d)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Indiana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such. A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified by a body accredited by the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education, which is named in the communication (7.4(d)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Indiana no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 lists communications that violate the rule absent special protections: statistics or past-performance information, results references that create an expectation of similar results, testimonials or endorsements likely to create an unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated comparisons, and dramatizations not disclosed as such.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending or advertising the lawyer's services, except to pay ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified referral service that meets Rule 7.3(d), a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.2(b)). A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service unless it falls within the 7.3(d) list, and may pay only its usual and reasonable fees (7.3(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Indiana: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site) · Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3 (Indiana Supreme Court rules site)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Indiana. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Iowa
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y datos de contacto; sin período de espera; los testimonios no están prohibidos; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2025; algunas reglas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Iowa les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar de antemano los anuncios ni las solicitaciones, y la Regla 32:7.2 no tiene cláusula sobre guardar registros. El abogado puede comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio (7.2(a)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules have no filing or pre-review requirement for ads or solicitations, and Rule 32:7.2 has no record-keeping clause. A lawyer may communicate information about the lawyer's services through any media (7.2(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(a) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements.
Comment [3] says a true report of past results may mislead, and an unsubstantiated comparison or claim may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Iowa no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or omits a needed fact (7.1). Comment [3] says a true report of past results may mislead, and an unsubstantiated comparison or claim may mislead. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Iowa no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or omits a needed fact (7.1). Comment [3] says a true report of past results may mislead, and an unsubstantiated comparison or claim may mislead. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [1] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be disseminated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2 comment [1] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Iowa no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials, endorsements or past-result statements. A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation or omits a needed fact (7.1). Comment [3] says a true report of past results may mislead, and an unsubstantiated comparison or claim may mislead. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Iowa no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [3] says a true report of past results may mislead, and an unsubstantiated comparison or claim may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.1 comment [3] (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(c) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not pay or promise anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services. Exceptions: ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, buying a practice, non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements with client notice, and nominal gifts (7.2(b)). Comment [5] lets a lawyer pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its communications fit 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Iowa: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(b) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(b)(2) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature) · Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32:7.2(b)(5) (Iowa Court Rules ch. 32, hosted by the Iowa Legislature)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Iowa. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Kansas
En resumen: Sin presentación, pero con copias guardadas 2 años; se nombra a un abogado responsable; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas no solicitadas; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Kansas les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni revisión previa. El abogado guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 2 años después de su último uso, con un registro de cuándo y dónde salió (KRPC 7.2(b)). El comentario [5] dice que la regla no exige revisar la publicidad antes de que salga.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or prior review. A lawyer keeps a copy or recording of each ad for two years after its last use, with a record of when and where it ran (KRPC 7.2(b)). Comment [5] says the rule does not require advertising to be reviewed before it runs.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2 comment [5] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
No clause bans testimonials outright.
Comment [1] says (b) would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for a client and ads containing client endorsements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)).
Comment [1] says (b) would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for a client and ads containing client endorsements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Kansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials outright. A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [1] says (b) would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for a client and ads containing client endorsements. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Kansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials outright. A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [1] says (b) would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for a client and ads containing client endorsements. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be disseminated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2 comment [2] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Kansas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No clause bans testimonials outright. A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)). Comment [1] says (b) would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for a client and ads containing client endorsements. A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless a state-approved or ABA-accredited body certified it and the ad names that body (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Kansas no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or compares services without factual substantiation (7.1(b), (c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(b) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.1 comment [1] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except reasonable ad costs and the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization (KRPC 7.2(c)). Comment [6] lets a lawyer pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, payment fits Rules 1.5(g) and 5.4, and its communications fit 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kansas: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2(c) (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov) · Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240, KRPC 7.2 comment [6] (Kansas Supreme Court, kscourts.gov)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Kansas. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Kentucky
En resumen: Revisión voluntaria de anuncios ($75); nombre y dirección de la oficina o nombre de la firma; «especialista» solo con certificación; espera de 30 días después de desastres; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas grabadas; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2026.
¿Kentucky les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios no se presentan ni se aprueban de antemano. El abogado puede pedir una opinión consultiva a la Comisión de Publicidad de Abogados: cargo de $75 (más $100 por anuncios de más de 100 páginas o 10 minutos), con opinión en 30 días (7.03). El abogado guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio, con cuándo y dónde salió, durante 2 años después de su último uso (7.20(6)).
Según nuestro resumen, la revisión de anuncios es voluntaria. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads are not filed or pre-approved. A lawyer may ask the Attorneys' Advertising Commission for an advisory opinion: $75 fee (plus $100 for ads over 100 pages or 10 minutes), with an opinion within 30 days (7.03). A lawyer keeps a copy or recording of every ad, with when and where it ran, for 2 years after its last use (7.20(6)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.03) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.03) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
General testimonials about satisfaction are ordinarily not misleading.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Damage awards, cumulative verdicts or a verdict record need the case's facts and law.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say they are certified as a specialist only if the body is state-approved or ABA-accredited, is named, and the certification is current (7.40(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Kentucky no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false, deceptive or misleading (7.10). AAC Regulation 1 says ads may be misleading if they create an unjustified expectation, compare lawyers without factual proof, or show an actor posing as an actual client. General testimonials about satisfaction are ordinarily not misleading. Damage awards, cumulative verdicts or a verdict record need the case's facts and law. A lawyer may say they are certified as a specialist only if the body is state-approved or ABA-accredited, is named, and the certification is current (7.40(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
AAC Regulation 1 says ads may be misleading if they create an unjustified expectation, compare lawyers without factual proof, or show an actor posing as an actual client.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false, deceptive or misleading communication (7.10) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Kentucky no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false, deceptive or misleading (7.10). AAC Regulation 1 says ads may be misleading if they create an unjustified expectation, compare lawyers without factual proof, or show an actor posing as an actual client. General testimonials about satisfaction are ordinarily not misleading. Damage awards, cumulative verdicts or a verdict record need the case's facts and law. A lawyer may say they are certified as a specialist only if the body is state-approved or ABA-accredited, is named, and the certification is current (7.40(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Kentucky no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
AAC Regulation 1 says ads may be misleading if they create an unjustified expectation, compare lawyers without factual proof, or show an actor posing as an actual client.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.10) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association) · Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission, AAC Regulation No. 1 (Kentucky Bar Association)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a non-lawyer for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, the price of a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.20(2)). The rule names only not-for-profit referral services and has no nominal-gift exception.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Kentucky: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.20) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.20) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules) · Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court, SCR 3.130(7.20) (Kentucky Court of Justice rules publication, govt.westlaw.com/kyrules)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Kentucky. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Luisiana
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan en el primer uso o antes ($175; $275 si es tarde) y cada anuncio no exento lleva el número de presentación del Colegio; los resultados necesitan un descargo; espera de 30 días; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; la ley de privacidad rige desde el 1 de enero de 2027.
¿Luisiana les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios en medios públicos y las comunicaciones escritas no solicitadas se presentan al comité del Colegio antes del primer uso o al mismo tiempo (7.7(c)). Cargo: $175; $275 si se presenta después del primer uso; se aplica una cuota reducida de $100 a quienes nombra la tabla del colegio. Una opinión anticipada opcional se pide al menos 30 días antes (7.7(b)). Los anuncios con solo el contenido básico de las Reglas 7.2(a) y 7.2(b) están exentos (7.8(a)). Se guarda una copia durante 5 años después del último uso (7.7(j)).
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan al usarlos por primera vez o antes. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads in public media and unsolicited written communications are filed with the bar's committee before or at the same time as first use (7.7(c)). Fee: $175; $275 if filed after first use; a discounted $100 fee applies to the filers the Bar's schedule names. An optional advance opinion is requested at least 30 days ahead (7.7(b)). Ads with only the basic content in 7.2(a) and 7.2(b) are exempt (7.8(a)). Keep a copy for five years after last use (7.7(j)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.7(c) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.7(c)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A paid testimonial needs disclosure of the payment (7.2(c)(1)(h)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A reference to past results needs a disclaimer such as "results may vary" (7.2(c)(1)(d)).
Promising results is barred (7.2(c)(1)(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say "specialist" but may say "certified" only as 7.2(c)(5) allows.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Luisiana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A reference to past results needs a disclaimer such as "results may vary" (7.2(c)(1)(d)). Promising results is barred (7.2(c)(1)(e)). Comparisons must be factually substantiated (7.2(c)(1)(g)). A paid testimonial needs disclosure of the payment (7.2(c)(1)(h)). A lawyer may say "specialist" but may say "certified" only as 7.2(c)(5) allows.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Luisiana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A reference to past results needs a disclaimer such as "results may vary" (7.2(c)(1)(d)). Promising results is barred (7.2(c)(1)(e)). Comparisons must be factually substantiated (7.2(c)(1)(g)). A paid testimonial needs disclosure of the payment (7.2(c)(1)(h)). A lawyer may say "specialist" but may say "certified" only as 7.2(c)(5) allows.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
Español u otro idioma
Any words the rules require in an ad must appear in the language the ad uses, and in each language if more than one is used (7.2(c)(9)). A filing includes an accurate English translation of any ad in another language (7.7(d)(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(9) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.7(d)(4)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Luisiana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A reference to past results needs a disclaimer such as "results may vary" (7.2(c)(1)(d)). Promising results is barred (7.2(c)(1)(e)). Comparisons must be factually substantiated (7.2(c)(1)(g)). A paid testimonial needs disclosure of the payment (7.2(c)(1)(h)). A lawyer may say "specialist" but may say "certified" only as 7.2(c)(5) allows.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Luisiana no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comparisons must be factually substantiated (7.2(c)(1)(g)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(d) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(e) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(1)(g)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except the reasonable cost of permitted advertising and the usual charges of a lawyer referral service (7.2(c)(13)). The service must be run by the bar, a local bar or a not-for-profit, refer all who ask, bar fee increases to cover its charges, and assign cases by random allotment or rotation. A lawyer may not pay part of another firm's ad (7.2(c)(11)). The rules have no separate lead-generator clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Luisiana: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(13) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(13)(a) · Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), published by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Rule 7.2(c)(11)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Luisiana. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Maine
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas automatizadas de venta; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Maine les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3. Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.6 no tienen cláusula de presentación ni de revisión.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval is required. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer advertise through written, recorded or electronic communication, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3. Rules 7.1 to 7.6 have no filing or review clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say whether the lawyer practices or specializes in a field (7.4(a)).
A lawyer may not say or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or Maine-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Maine no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by leaving out a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may say whether the lawyer practices or specializes in a field (7.4(a)). A lawyer may not say or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or Maine-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials; Rule 7.1 covers them.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Maine no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by leaving out a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may say whether the lawyer practices or specializes in a field (7.4(a)). A lawyer may not say or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or Maine-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials; Rule 7.1 covers them.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Maine no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by leaving out a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may say whether the lawyer practices or specializes in a field (7.4(a)). A lawyer may not say or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or Maine-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials; Rule 7.1 covers them.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Maine no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Maine no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by leaving out a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may say whether the lawyer practices or specializes in a field (7.4(a)). A lawyer may not say or imply certification as a specialist unless an approved or Maine-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate clause on past results or testimonials; Rule 7.1 covers them.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(a) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (Maine Judicial Branch)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for a recommendation, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, the price of a law practice (Rule 1.17), or under a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is told about (7.2(b)). A qualified service is one operated, sponsored or approved by a bar association or bar regulatory organization. The rule has no thank-you-gift exception and no separate lead-generator clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maine: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Maine Judicial Branch) · Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Maine Judicial Branch)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Maine. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Maryland
En resumen: Sin presentación de los anuncios ordinarios, con copias guardadas 3 años; las solicitaciones por lesiones se presentan al Consejero del Colegio en 3 días; se nombra a un abogado responsable; espera legal de 30 días; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas por mensajes de hasta $500; ley de privacidad en vigor.
¿Maryland les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios no se revisan antes de usarlos y no se presenta nada de los anuncios ordinarios. Se guarda una copia y un registro de cuándo y dónde salió cada anuncio durante al menos 3 años (19-307.2(b)). Una solicitación enviada por correo, grabada o en línea sobre una lesión, accidente, desastre o caso penal o de tránsito con posible cárcel debe presentarse al Consejero del Colegio dentro de los 3 días siguientes al envío (Bus. Occ. & Prof. 10-605.2(h)). No se indica ningún cargo.
Según nuestro resumen, solo se presentan las solicitudes dirigidas (cartas o correos a posibles clientes). Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads are not reviewed before use, and nothing is filed for ordinary ads. Keep a copy and a record of when and where each ad ran for at least three years (19-307.2(b)). A mailed, recorded or online solicitation about an injury, accident, disaster or criminal or jailable traffic case must be filed with Bar Counsel within 3 days of sending (Bus. Occ. & Prof. 10-605.2(h)). No fee is stated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.2(b) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.2, comment [6] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A testimonial or endorsement from someone who is not a bona fide pre-existing client who benefited is misleading (same comment).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that creates an unjustified expectation of results or compares services with other lawyers' services without factual support (19-307.1(b), (c)).
A claim about the lawyer's record in past awards, verdicts or settlements is misleading unless it states that each case is different and the past record is no assurance of a result in a future case (19-307.1, comment [2]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Nuestro resumen de Maryland no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that creates an unjustified expectation of results or compares services with other lawyers' services without factual support (19-307.1(b), (c)). A claim about the lawyer's record in past awards, verdicts or settlements is misleading unless it states that each case is different and the past record is no assurance of a result in a future case (19-307.1, comment [2]). A testimonial or endorsement from someone who is not a bona fide pre-existing client who benefited is misleading (same comment).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
An ad saying no fee without a recovery also says whether the client owes expenses (19-307.2(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Maryland no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that creates an unjustified expectation of results or compares services with other lawyers' services without factual support (19-307.1(b), (c)). A claim about the lawyer's record in past awards, verdicts or settlements is misleading unless it states that each case is different and the past record is no assurance of a result in a future case (19-307.1, comment [2]). A testimonial or endorsement from someone who is not a bona fide pre-existing client who benefited is misleading (same comment).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (19-307.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.2, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Maryland no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that creates an unjustified expectation of results or compares services with other lawyers' services without factual support (19-307.1(b), (c)). A claim about the lawyer's record in past awards, verdicts or settlements is misleading unless it states that each case is different and the past record is no assurance of a result in a future case (19-307.1, comment [2]). A testimonial or endorsement from someone who is not a bona fide pre-existing client who benefited is misleading (same comment).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Maryland no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that creates an unjustified expectation of results or compares services with other lawyers' services without factual support (19-307.1(b), (c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1 (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.1, comment [2] (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer cannot give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay the reasonable cost of advertising, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit attorney referral service, the price of a purchased practice, or a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement with a non-attorney professional of which the client is informed (19-307.2(c)). The Maryland State Bar Association ethics committee says an online service fee that depends on the client hiring the lawyer is fee-sharing (Op. 2016-14), a paid directory upgrade not tied to successful referrals is allowed (Op. 2016-13), and a pay formula based on the firm's overall financial performance is fee-splitting (Op. 2024-01).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Maryland: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.2(c) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300, Rule 19-307.2(c)(2) (Maryland Judiciary compilation of Title 19 chapters 100-300) · Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket 2016-14 (opinion of that body)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Maryland. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Massachusetts
En resumen: Sin presentación; se nombra a un abogado o firma responsable en cada anuncio; sin período de espera fijo; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por llamadas de venta repetidas; ley de aviso de filtraciones, sin ley integral de privacidad confirmada.
¿Massachusetts les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio. El Capítulo 7 de las reglas de Massachusetts solo tiene las Reglas 7.1 a 7.3, y ninguna contiene una cláusula de presentación.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval is required. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer communicate information about services through any media. Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts rules has only Rules 7.1 to 7.3, and none has a filing clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · S.J.C. Rule 3:07 table of contents (mass.gov)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say publicly that the lawyer specializes, concentrates or has expertise in a field if not misleading (7.2(c)).
A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless the certifying body is named and is state-approved or ABA-accredited, or the ad says it is a private organization not regulated by a state authority or the ABA (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Massachusetts no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). A comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may say publicly that the lawyer specializes, concentrates or has expertise in a field if not misleading (7.2(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless the certifying body is named and is state-approved or ABA-accredited, or the ad says it is a private organization not regulated by a state authority or the ABA (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Massachusetts no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). A comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may say publicly that the lawyer specializes, concentrates or has expertise in a field if not misleading (7.2(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless the certifying body is named and is state-approved or ABA-accredited, or the ad says it is a private organization not regulated by a state authority or the ABA (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause requiring statements in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. A comment to 7.3 notes that people not fluent in the language of a solicitation may be especially vulnerable to coercion or duress (7.3 cmt. [6]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3 comment [6] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Massachusetts no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). A comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may say publicly that the lawyer specializes, concentrates or has expertise in a field if not misleading (7.2(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless the certifying body is named and is state-approved or ABA-accredited, or the ad says it is a private organization not regulated by a state authority or the ABA (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Massachusetts no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate or give or promise anything of value for a recommendation, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan, not-for-profit lawyer referral service or qualified legal assistance organization, the price of a law practice (Rule 1.17), under a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is told about, or nominal thank-you gifts (7.2(b)). Comment [5] lets a lawyer pay a lead generator that does not recommend the lawyer, if the payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4 and its communications fit Rule 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Massachusetts: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov) · Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(5) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, mass.gov)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Massachusetts. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Míchigan
En resumen: Sin presentación, con copias guardadas 2 años; se nombra a un abogado responsable cuando un anuncio se publica con un número de teléfono, una dirección web o un nombre comercial; prohibición legal de 30 días de contactar a víctimas de accidentes de vehículos; la ley de grabación no aclara el caso de quien participa; sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Míchigan les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las reglas no exigen presentar ni revisar los anuncios de antemano. Se guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 2 años después de su última aparición, con un registro de cuándo y dónde se usó (7.2(b)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The rules do not require ads to be filed or reviewed in advance. Keep a copy or recording of each ad for two years after it last ran, with a record of when and where it was used (7.2(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The comment says the unjustified-expectation rule would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for clients and ads with client endorsements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication cannot contain a material misrepresentation, create an unjustified expectation about results, or compare a lawyer's services with others' unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(a) to (c)).
The comment says the unjustified-expectation rule would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for clients and ads with client endorsements.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Rule 7.4 lets a lawyer say that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields; it has no clause on 'specialist' or certification claims.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Míchigan no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication cannot contain a material misrepresentation, create an unjustified expectation about results, or compare a lawyer's services with others' unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(a) to (c)). The comment says the unjustified-expectation rule would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for clients and ads with client endorsements. Rule 7.4 lets a lawyer say that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields; it has no clause on 'specialist' or certification claims.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Míchigan no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication cannot contain a material misrepresentation, create an unjustified expectation about results, or compare a lawyer's services with others' unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(a) to (c)). The comment says the unjustified-expectation rule would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for clients and ads with client endorsements. Rule 7.4 lets a lawyer say that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields; it has no clause on 'specialist' or certification claims.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Míchigan no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication cannot contain a material misrepresentation, create an unjustified expectation about results, or compare a lawyer's services with others' unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(a) to (c)). The comment says the unjustified-expectation rule would ordinarily preclude ads about results obtained for clients and ads with client endorsements. Rule 7.4 lets a lawyer say that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields; it has no clause on 'specialist' or certification claims.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Míchigan no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication cannot contain a material misrepresentation, create an unjustified expectation about results, or compare a lawyer's services with others' unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(a) to (c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(b) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer cannot give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay the reasonable cost of advertising, to pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization meeting Rule 6.3(b), or to pay for a law practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(c)). The State Bar of Michigan's ethics committee says a coupon arrangement where the vendor keeps part of the price is improper fee-sharing (RI-366).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Míchigan: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c)(ii) (Michigan Supreme Court, updated with orders effective 1/1/2026) · State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, RI-366 (2014-01-24)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Míchigan. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Minnesota
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y datos de contacto; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas grabadas; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 31 de julio de 2025.
¿Minnesota les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio. Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.3 no tienen cláusula de presentación, y las Reglas 7.4 y 7.5 se derogaron el 1 de septiembre de 2022.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval is required. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer communicate information about services through any media. Rules 7.1 to 7.3 have no filing clause, and Rules 7.4 and 7.5 were repealed Sept. 1, 2022.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist status or certification unless the ad names the certifying body, and says so if the lawyer or body is not accredited by the Minnesota Board of Legal Certification (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Minnesota no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist status or certification unless the ad names the certifying body, and says so if the lawyer or body is not accredited by the Minnesota Board of Legal Certification (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Minnesota no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist status or certification unless the ad names the certifying body, and says so if the lawyer or body is not accredited by the Minnesota Board of Legal Certification (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause requiring statements in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [1] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information a lawyer may publish.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 comment [1] (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Minnesota no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading, including by omission (7.1). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist status or certification unless the ad names the certifying body, and says so if the lawyer or body is not accredited by the Minnesota Board of Legal Certification (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Minnesota no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it suggests the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated claims or comparisons can mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment [3] (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Minnesota Revisor)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value for a recommendation, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, the price of a law practice (Rule 1.17), under a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is told about, or nominal thank-you gifts (7.2(b)). Comment [5] lets a lawyer pay a lead generator that does not recommend the lawyer, if the payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4 and its ads fit Rule 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Minnesota: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Minnesota Revisor) · Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(5) (Minnesota Revisor)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Minnesota. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Misisipi
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan antes del primer uso ($25; $150 si es tarde), y las páginas web a las que se llega por búsqueda están exentas; ciudad y estado de la oficina y un aviso fijo de «información de antecedentes gratuita» en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; algunas reglas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Misisipi les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios deben enviarse a la Oficina del Asesor General del Colegio de Mississippi antes del primer uso (7.5(a)). El cargo es $25 por envío a tiempo y $150 si no se hace a tiempo (7.5(c)(4)). Una opinión consultiva opcional cuesta $50 y debe pedirse al menos 45 días antes del uso (7.5(d)). Exentos: los anuncios sin ilustraciones y con solo la información de las Reglas 7.2 y 7.4, los anuncios de directorio telefónico, las tarjetas de presentación y el papel membretado, y las páginas web a las que se llega por una búsqueda iniciada por la persona (7.5(b)). El abogado guarda una copia con un registro de cuándo y dónde salió (7.2(h)); el texto en PDF muestra tanto «cinco (5)» como «tres (3)» años para ese plazo, así que la duración no es clara.
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan antes de usarlos por primera vez. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads must be submitted to the Mississippi Bar's Office of General Counsel before first use (7.5(a)). The fee is $25 per submission filed on time and $150 if not timely filed (7.5(c)(4)). An optional advisory opinion costs $50 and needs a request at least 45 days before use (7.5(d)). Exempt: ads with no illustrations and only the information listed in Rules 7.2 and 7.4, telephone directory ads, business cards and letterhead, and web pages reached through a search the person started (7.5(b)). A lawyer keeps a copy with a record of when and where it ran (7.2(h)); the PDF text shows both "five (5)" and "three (3)" years for that period, so the length is unclear.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.5(a) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.5(c)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate clause on testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
That includes creating an unjustified expectation about results, and comparing services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(b), (d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may communicate certification in a field only if an ABA-accredited body granted it; a non-ABA certification may be stated only with a disclosure that Mississippi has no procedure for approving certifying bodies (7.6(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Misisipi no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false, misleading, deceptive or unfair (7.1). That includes creating an unjustified expectation about results, and comparing services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(b), (d)). Factual statements in an ad must not be unsubstantiated, and the Bar may ask for proof (7.4(d), (e)). A lawyer may communicate certification in a field only if an ABA-accredited body granted it; a non-ABA certification may be stated only with a disclosure that Mississippi has no procedure for approving certifying bodies (7.6(a)). The rules have no separate clause on testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Misisipi no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false, misleading, deceptive or unfair (7.1). That includes creating an unjustified expectation about results, and comparing services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(b), (d)). Factual statements in an ad must not be unsubstantiated, and the Bar may ask for proof (7.4(d), (e)). A lawyer may communicate certification in a field only if an ABA-accredited body granted it; a non-ABA certification may be stated only with a disclosure that Mississippi has no procedure for approving certifying bodies (7.6(a)). The rules have no separate clause on testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause requiring statements in other languages. The general ban on false, misleading, deceptive or unfair communication (7.1) applies to every language. Rule 7.2(f)(3) presumes that stating foreign language ability does not violate Rule 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(f)(3) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(f)(3) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Misisipi no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false, misleading, deceptive or unfair (7.1). That includes creating an unjustified expectation about results, and comparing services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(b), (d)). Factual statements in an ad must not be unsubstantiated, and the Bar may ask for proof (7.4(d), (e)). A lawyer may communicate certification in a field only if an ABA-accredited body granted it; a non-ABA certification may be stated only with a disclosure that Mississippi has no procedure for approving certifying bodies (7.6(a)). The rules have no separate clause on testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Misisipi no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
That includes creating an unjustified expectation about results, and comparing services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (7.1(b), (d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(d) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(4) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written communications and the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or other legal service organization (7.2(i)). Nothing in the text allows reciprocal-referral agreements or nominal gifts. A lawyer who pays part of another lawyer's ad must disclose the other lawyer's name, address and relationship (7.2(e)). The rule has no separate lead-generator clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misisipi: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(i) (Mississippi Supreme Court) · Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(e) (Mississippi Supreme Court)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Misisipi. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Misuri
En resumen: Sin presentación, con copias guardadas 2 años; una oración fija en cada anuncio sobre cómo elegir un abogado; espera de 30 días; los proveedores que cobran por contacto deben estar registrados como servicios de referencia; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas y mensajes a números excluidos; sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Misuri les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni revisar los anuncios de antemano. El abogado debe guardar una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 2 años después de su último uso, con un registro de cuándo y dónde salió (4-7.2(b)). Las solicitaciones escritas también se guardan 2 años (4-7.3(b)(2)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or advance review is required. A lawyer must keep a copy or recording of each ad for two years after its last use, with a record of when and where it ran (4-7.2(b)). Written solicitations are also kept two years (4-7.3(b)(2)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.2(b) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.3(b)(2) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A paid testimonial must be identified as paid, and simulated portrayals as simulations (4-7.1(h), (i)).
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless the ad says neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations (4-7.4).
Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results, states past results (such as damage awards) without saying past results guarantee nothing and every case is different, or compares services without factual support (4-7.1(b), (c), (e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless the ad says neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations (4-7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Misuri no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results, states past results (such as damage awards) without saying past results guarantee nothing and every case is different, or compares services without factual support (4-7.1(b), (c), (e)). A paid testimonial must be identified as paid, and simulated portrayals as simulations (4-7.1(h), (i)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless the ad says neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations (4-7.4). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
A paid testimonial must be identified as paid, and simulated portrayals as simulations (4-7.1(h), (i)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Español u otro idioma
Words or statements the rules require in an ad or direct mail must appear in the same language as the ad. If more than one language is used, they must appear in each language used (4-7.2(h)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.2(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.2(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Misuri no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results, states past results (such as damage awards) without saying past results guarantee nothing and every case is different, or compares services without factual support (4-7.1(b), (c), (e)). A paid testimonial must be identified as paid, and simulated portrayals as simulations (4-7.1(h), (i)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless the ad says neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations (4-7.4). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Misuri no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about results, states past results (such as damage awards) without saying past results guarantee nothing and every case is different, or compares services without factual support (4-7.1(b), (c), (e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(e) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.1(h) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for a recommendation, except ad costs, sale-of-practice notice costs, and the usual charges of a qualified lawyer referral service registered under Rule 4-9.1 or another not-for-profit legal services organization (4-7.2(c)). Rule 4-9.1(d) says only a qualified service may operate to refer potential clients to particular lawyers, whether or not it uses the term referral service. Informal Opinion 2025-05 applies this to lead generators: a vendor that sends particular clients to particular lawyers must be a qualified service registered with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Misuri: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.2(c) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-7.2(c)(3) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov) · Missouri Supreme Court Rules, Rule 4-9.1(d) (Missouri Supreme Court, courts.mo.gov)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Misuri. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Montana
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre, datos de contacto y jurisdicciones de licencia en cada anuncio; sin período de espera; los resultados necesitan una declaración de que los resultados pasados no garantizan nada; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por llamadas a números excluidos; ley de privacidad en vigor.
¿Montana les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. La Regla 7.2(a) permite al abogado comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio. Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.5 no tienen cláusula de presentación (la 7.4 fue eliminada).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval is required. Rule 7.2(a) lets a lawyer communicate information about services through any media. Rules 7.1 to 7.5 have no filing clause (7.4 is eliminated).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 (State Bar of Montana)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Paid testimonials or endorsements must be conspicuously identified as paid (7.1(h)).
Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)).
Ads that proclaim results, such as damage awards or verdict records, must state that past results afford no guarantee of future results and that every case is different (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Montana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading (7.1). A communication is misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)). Ads that proclaim results, such as damage awards or verdict records, must state that past results afford no guarantee of future results and that every case is different (7.1(c)). Comparisons need factual substantiation (7.1(e)). Paid testimonials or endorsements must be conspicuously identified as paid (7.1(h)). Simulated portrayals must be identified (7.1(i)). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Simulated portrayals must be identified (7.1(i)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (State Bar of Montana)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Montana no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: No ad may be false or misleading (7.1). A communication is misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)). Ads that proclaim results, such as damage awards or verdict records, must state that past results afford no guarantee of future results and that every case is different (7.1(c)). Comparisons need factual substantiation (7.1(e)). Paid testimonials or endorsements must be conspicuously identified as paid (7.1(h)). Simulated portrayals must be identified (7.1(i)). A lawyer may not state or imply specialist certification unless an approved or ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.2(c)). Testimonials are not banned outright.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Montana no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)).
Comparisons need factual substantiation (7.1(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(e) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(h) (State Bar of Montana)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value for a recommendation, except to pay reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, the price of a law practice (Rule 1.19), under a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is told about, or nominal thank-you gifts (7.2(b)). The rule text has no separate lead-generator clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Montana: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (State Bar of Montana) · Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(4) (State Bar of Montana)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Montana. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nebraska
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2025.
¿Nebraska les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni revisión previa. El abogado puede anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, incluidos los medios públicos, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3 (3-507.2(a)). La regla no tiene cláusula sobre guardar registros.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or advance review. A lawyer may advertise through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (3-507.2(a)). The rule has no record-keeping clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.2(a) (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.5 (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Nuestro resumen de Nebraska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that omits a fact needed to keep a statement from misleading (3-507.1). Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]). A lawyer cannot state or imply certification as a specialist unless an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the ABA certified the lawyer and the ad names that organization (3-507.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer cannot state or imply certification as a specialist unless an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the ABA certified the lawyer and the ad names that organization (3-507.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Nebraska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that omits a fact needed to keep a statement from misleading (3-507.1). Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]). A lawyer cannot state or imply certification as a specialist unless an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the ABA certified the lawyer and the ad names that organization (3-507.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Nebraska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that omits a fact needed to keep a statement from misleading (3-507.1). Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]). A lawyer cannot state or imply certification as a specialist unless an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the ABA certified the lawyer and the ad names that organization (3-507.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (3-507.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 3-507.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be shared.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.2, comment [2] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nebraska no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including one that omits a fact needed to keep a statement from misleading (3-507.1). Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]). A lawyer cannot state or imply certification as a specialist unless an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the ABA certified the lawyer and the ad names that organization (3-507.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nebraska no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (3-507.1, comment [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1 (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.1, comment [3] (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer cannot give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay reasonable advertising costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service (one approved by an appropriate regulatory authority), the price of a purchased practice, or a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement with another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional of which the client is informed (3-507.2(b)). Vendors who provide marketing services may be paid (comment [5]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nebraska: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.2(b) (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.2(b)(2) (Nebraska Judicial Branch) · Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-507.2(b)(4) (Nebraska Judicial Branch)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nebraska. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nevada
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan al Colegio de Abogados dentro de los 15 días siguientes a su primera difusión ($100); se nombra a un abogado responsable; los resultados necesitan un descargo; espera de 30 días para el contacto escrito por lesiones; las reglas de grabación difieren para llamadas y conversaciones en persona; ley de datos de salud del consumidor.
¿Nevada les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
El abogado presenta al Colegio de Abogados del estado, dentro de los 15 días siguientes a la primera difusión, una copia o grabación de cada anuncio pagado o escrito, con un formulario y un cargo (Regla 7.2A). La página del Colegio fija el cargo en $100 por anuncio. Los sitios web no se presentan. Hay una opinión anticipada opcional sobre un anuncio propuesto (Regla 7.2B); la página del Colegio indica $250.
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan después de usarlos por primera vez. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
A lawyer files a copy or recording of each paid or written ad with the State Bar within 15 days of first dissemination, with a form and a fee (Rule 7.2A). The Bar's page sets the fee at $100 per ad. Websites are not filed. An optional advance opinion on a proposed ad is available (Rule 7.2B); the Bar's page lists $250.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2A(a) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2A(a) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A reference to past results needs the lawyer to have been lead counsel (or primarily responsible), a statement that past results do not guarantee future cases, and, for a money figure, the amount actually received with case details and, if the gross is stated, the fees and expenses withheld (7.2(b)(7)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may call themselves a specialist or expert only if certified by an organization the State Bar approved and meeting practice-hour, CLE and $500,000 insurance requirements, and must register with the Bar (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
An ad that says the fee depends on the outcome must say the client may be liable for the opposing party's fees and costs (7.2(b)(4)).
An ad with a specific fee or range must say how long the fee applies and any limits (7.2(b)(5)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Nevada no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Statements about the quality of a lawyer's services are subject to proof on request (Rule 7.2(b)(6)). A reference to past results needs the lawyer to have been lead counsel (or primarily responsible), a statement that past results do not guarantee future cases, and, for a money figure, the amount actually received with case details and, if the gross is stated, the fees and expenses withheld (7.2(b)(7)). A lawyer may call themselves a specialist or expert only if certified by an organization the State Bar approved and meeting practice-hour, CLE and $500,000 insurance requirements, and must register with the Bar (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
Any statement or disclaimer the rules require must appear in each language used in the ad. Saying only that a language is spoken or understood does not trigger the requirement (Rule 7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nevada no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Statements about the quality of a lawyer's services are subject to proof on request (Rule 7.2(b)(6)). A reference to past results needs the lawyer to have been lead counsel (or primarily responsible), a statement that past results do not guarantee future cases, and, for a money figure, the amount actually received with case details and, if the gross is stated, the fees and expenses withheld (7.2(b)(7)). A lawyer may call themselves a specialist or expert only if certified by an organization the State Bar approved and meeting practice-hour, CLE and $500,000 insurance requirements, and must register with the Bar (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nevada no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Nevada no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Statements about the quality of a lawyer's services are subject to proof on request (Rule 7.2(b)(6)). A reference to past results needs the lawyer to have been lead counsel (or primarily responsible), a statement that past results do not guarantee future cases, and, for a money figure, the amount actually received with case details and, if the gross is stated, the fees and expenses withheld (7.2(b)(7)). A lawyer may call themselves a specialist or expert only if certified by an organization the State Bar approved and meeting practice-hour, CLE and $500,000 insurance requirements, and must register with the Bar (7.4(d)). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(6) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(7) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except a fee division allowed by Rule 1.5(e), the reasonable cost of advertising, and the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or other legal service organization (Rule 7.2(a)). The rule has no exception for reciprocal referrals, nominal gifts or a practice purchase.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nevada: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026) · Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Nevada Legislature copy of the Supreme Court's rules, rev. 4/15/2026)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nevada. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nuevo Hampshire
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por llamadas de telemercadeo ($1.000 o daños reales); ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2025.
¿Nuevo Hampshire les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni aprobación previa. El abogado puede anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, incluidos los medios públicos, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3 (7.2(a)). Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.5 no tienen cláusula que exija presentar ni revisar los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval. A lawyer may advertise through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (7.2(a)). Rules 7.1 to 7.5 have no clause requiring ads to be filed or reviewed.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: presentación o revisión de anuncios · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(a) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares the lawyer's services with others without factual substantiation (7.1(a)-(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by an ABA-accredited organization (7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo Hampshire no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares the lawyer's services with others without factual substantiation (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by an ABA-accredited organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo Hampshire no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares the lawyer's services with others without factual substantiation (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by an ABA-accredited organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo Hampshire no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares the lawyer's services with others without factual substantiation (7.1(a)-(c)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by an ABA-accredited organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo Hampshire no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation, is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, or compares the lawyer's services with others without factual substantiation (7.1(a)-(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.4 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services. Exceptions: reasonable advertising costs, a fee charged by an organization the IRS recognizes as exempt under Section 501(c)(3), and buying a practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(b)). The comment allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nuevo Hampshire: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(b) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(b)(2) (New Hampshire Judicial Branch) · N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2 comment [5] (New Hampshire Judicial Branch)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nuevo Hampshire. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nueva Jersey
En resumen: Sin presentación de anuncios, pero con copias guardadas 3 años; datos de contacto en cada anuncio, con un abogado de Nueva Jersey nombrado en los anuncios con el nombre de la firma; redacción fija para comparaciones, premios y testimonios; espera de 30 días solo después de desastres masivos; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; ley de privacidad en vigor.
¿Nueva Jersey les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las RPC 7.1 a 7.5 no exigen presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. Se guarda 3 años una copia o grabación de cada anuncio, con un registro de cuándo y dónde se usó (7.2(b)). El contenido del sitio web se captura al menos cada mes y se guarda 3 años (7.2(b)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required by RPC 7.1-7.5. A copy or recording of each ad, with a record of when and where it was used, is kept 3 years (7.2(b)). Website content is captured at least monthly and kept 3 years (7.2(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: presentación o revisión de anuncios · N.J. RPC 7.2 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.2 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials are allowed (Opinion 49, Sept. 30, 2025): the client is named at least by initials, an actor is labeled a dramatization, and past-performance testimonials carry 'results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances'.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A lawyer may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(a)(2)).
Testimonials are allowed (Opinion 49, Sept. 30, 2025): the client is named at least by initials, an actor is labeled a dramatization, and past-performance testimonials carry 'results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances'.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Only lawyers certified by the Supreme Court or an ABA-approved body may say 'expert'; 'specialize' or 'expertise' must be provable (Opinion 45; 7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Nueva Jersey no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(a)(2)). Comparing services with other lawyers needs the comparing organization named, a substantiated basis, and the line 'No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey' (7.1(a)(3)). Testimonials are allowed (Opinion 49, Sept. 30, 2025): the client is named at least by initials, an actor is labeled a dramatization, and past-performance testimonials carry 'results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances'. Awards may be listed only as 'included in' a named list, with the organization, a methodology and the disclaimer (May 5, 2021 notice). Only lawyers certified by the Supreme Court or an ABA-approved body may say 'expert'; 'specialize' or 'expertise' must be provable (Opinion 45; 7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Testimonials are allowed (Opinion 49, Sept. 30, 2025): the client is named at least by initials, an actor is labeled a dramatization, and past-performance testimonials carry 'results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances'.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(a)) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nueva Jersey no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(a)(2)). Comparing services with other lawyers needs the comparing organization named, a substantiated basis, and the line 'No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey' (7.1(a)(3)). Testimonials are allowed (Opinion 49, Sept. 30, 2025): the client is named at least by initials, an actor is labeled a dramatization, and past-performance testimonials carry 'results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances'. Awards may be listed only as 'included in' a named list, with the organization, a methodology and the disclaimer (May 5, 2021 notice). Only lawyers certified by the Supreme Court or an ABA-approved body may say 'expert'; 'specialize' or 'expertise' must be provable (Opinion 45; 7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nueva Jersey no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A lawyer may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(a)(2)).
Comparing services with other lawyers needs the comparing organization named, a substantiated basis, and the line 'No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey' (7.1(a)(3)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.1 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Committee on Attorney Advertising, Opinion 49 (Sept. 30, 2025)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for a recommendation, except reasonable ad costs, practice-sale notices and the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service (7.2(c)); 7.3(d) allows usual and reasonable fees of a bar-approved referral service. Paying per lead is allowed but paying per client retained is not; leads sold with high retention rates or very high prices can be disguised referrals (Joint Opinion CAA 47 / ACPE 741, June 21, 2021). Avvo-type programs were found to be impermissible fee-sharing and referral fees (Joint Opinion 732 / CAA 44 / UPL 54, June 21, 2017).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva Jersey: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · N.J. RPC 7.2 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. RPC 7.3 (NJ Courts Rules of Court database) · N.J. Joint Opinion CAA 47 / ACPE 741 (June 21, 2021)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nueva Jersey. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nuevo México
En resumen: No se encontró una ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones de datos; la mayoría de las reglas de Nuevo México aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Nuevo México les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Marcada D: aún no hemos leído en una fuente oficial la regla propia de Nuevo México sobre la presentación de anuncios, así que se aplica la norma predeterminada de la Regla Modelo de la ABA hasta que lo hagamos: sin presentación ni revisión de los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Marked D: we haven’t read New Mexico’s own rule on filing ads at an official source, so the ABA Model Rule default applies until we do: no filing or review of ads.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: presentación o revisión de anuncios · ABA Model Rule 7.2(a)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto;
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos.
«Especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo México no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo México no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Español u otro idioma
Marked D: we haven’t read New Mexico’s own rules on ads in other languages at an official source, so our default applies until we do: every required statement appears in each language the ad uses.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · ABA Model Rule 7.1
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo México no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo México no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Nuevo México no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Marcado D: no hemos revisado el texto propio de este estado sobre resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de especialista, por lo que se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que lo hagamos. En la práctica: resultados solo si son veraces y se presentan en contexto; «especialista certificado» solo a través de un organismo aprobado que el anuncio nombre.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · ABA Model Rule 7.1 · ABA Model Rule 7.2(c)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
Marcado D: se aplica la Regla Modelo de la ABA por defecto hasta que se revise el texto del estado. Los abogados pueden pagar costos razonables de publicidad y los cargos habituales de un servicio de referidos calificado, nunca por una recomendación; los generadores de clientes potenciales se permiten solo si no recomiendan al abogado, no dan a entender una recomendación ni dividen honorarios.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Nuevo México: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · ABA Model Rule 7.2, comment [5]
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nuevo México. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Nueva York
En resumen: Nuevas reglas desde el 1 de junio de 2026: sin presentación, sin rótulo ni regla de conservación; nombre y datos de contacto; sin período de espera para los abogados de demandantes; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; sin ley integral de privacidad, pero con prohibición de geocercas alrededor de centros de salud.
¿Nueva York les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. La nueva Regla 7.1, vigente desde el 1 de junio de 2026, reemplaza por completo la Regla 7.1 anterior. Tiene cuatro párrafos (a)-(d) y ningún deber de presentación, aprobación previa ni conservación. La nueva Regla 7.3 tampoco tiene deber de presentación ni de lista de destinatarios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. New Rule 7.1, effective June 1, 2026, replaces the old Rule 7.1 in its entirety. It has four paragraphs (a)-(d) and no filing, pre-approval or retention duty. New Rule 7.3 also has no filing or recipient-list duty.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, effective date · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless an organization approved by a state, DC or territory authority, or accredited by the ABA, certified the lawyer and the communication names it (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Nueva York no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons. All claims answer to the ban on false or misleading communications, which covers a material misrepresentation of fact or law or an omitted fact (7.1(a)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless an organization approved by a state, DC or territory authority, or accredited by the ABA, certified the lawyer and the communication names it (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Nueva York no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons. All claims answer to the ban on false or misleading communications, which covers a material misrepresentation of fact or law or an omitted fact (7.1(a)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless an organization approved by a state, DC or territory authority, or accredited by the ABA, certified the lawyer and the communication names it (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(a)) applies to every language. The old duty to file an English translation of a solicitation ended with solicitation filing on June 1, 2026.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.3
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Nueva York no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons. All claims answer to the ban on false or misleading communications, which covers a material misrepresentation of fact or law or an omitted fact (7.1(a)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a certified specialist unless an organization approved by a state, DC or territory authority, or accredited by the ABA, certified the lawyer and the communication names it (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Nueva York no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
New Rule 7.1 has no separate clause on past results, testimonials or comparisons.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(a) · Joint Order of the Appellate Division Departments (May 27, 2026), amending 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1(c)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client (7.2(a)). Exceptions: a contract with a nonlegal professional firm under Rule 5.8, and usual fees of a qualified legal assistance organization or referral fees to another lawyer under Rule 1.5(g). NYSBA ethics opinions: 1294 (March 12, 2026) allows pay-per-lead from a platform that does not recommend the lawyer, uses neutral disclosed criteria and does not vary the price with a hire or the fee. 1279 (February 20, 2025) bars flat "administrative" payments to referrers. 1267 (June 18, 2024) finds a payment to a site that promises vetted lawyers is an improper payment for a recommendation. 1271 (August 22, 2024) finds a percentage-of-fee payment to a bidding platform breaks the rule on sharing fees with non-lawyers (5.4(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Nueva York: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (22 NYCRR Part 1200, copy hosted by the Appellate Division, Third Department) · New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a)(2) (22 NYCRR Part 1200, copy hosted by the Appellate Division, Third Department) · NYSBA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 1294 (March 12, 2026) (bar association ethics opinion)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Nueva York. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Carolina del Norte
En resumen: Sin presentación; un abogado o firma responsable con datos de contacto; sin período de espera; las dramatizaciones necesitan una declaración al inicio y al final; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas de venta ($500 a $5.000); sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Carolina del Norte les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni revisión previa. Las reglas permiten al abogado comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio (7.2(a)). El Colegio de Abogados del estado dice que no necesita revisar un sitio web antes de su lanzamiento.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or advance review. The rules let a lawyer communicate information about services through any media (7.2(a)). The State Bar says it need not review a website before launch.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: presentación o revisión de anuncios · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina State Bar, Review of Law Firm Websites
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including a statement likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers (7.1). Reported achievements can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (7.1, comment [3]). A lawyer may say 'specialist' only if certified by the State Bar or an organization it or the ABA has accredited, and the ad names the certifier (7.2(c)). Dramatizations of fictional cases are potentially misleading unless the ad states at the beginning and end that it is a dramatization (7.1, comment [10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including a statement likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers (7.1).
Reported achievements can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (7.1, comment [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say 'specialist' only if certified by the State Bar or an organization it or the ABA has accredited, and the ad names the certifier (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including a statement likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers (7.1). Reported achievements can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (7.1, comment [3]). A lawyer may say 'specialist' only if certified by the State Bar or an organization it or the ABA has accredited, and the ad names the certifier (7.2(c)). Dramatizations of fictional cases are potentially misleading unless the ad states at the beginning and end that it is a dramatization (7.1, comment [10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Dramatizations of fictional cases are potentially misleading unless the ad states at the beginning and end that it is a dramatization (7.1, comment [10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [1] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be shared.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2, comment [1] (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including a statement likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers (7.1). Reported achievements can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients; a disclaimer may preclude a finding of misleading (7.1, comment [3]). A lawyer may say 'specialist' only if certified by the State Bar or an organization it or the ABA has accredited, and the ad names the certifier (7.2(c)). Dramatizations of fictional cases are potentially misleading unless the ad states at the beginning and end that it is a dramatization (7.1, comment [10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Norte no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A lawyer cannot make a false or misleading communication, including a statement likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers (7.1).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, comment [3] (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (North Carolina State Bar)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer cannot compensate, give or promise anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay reasonable advertising costs, the usual charges of an intermediary organization that complies with Rule 7.4 or a State Bar-regulated prepaid legal plan, to buy a practice, or to give nominal gifts not intended or expected as compensation (7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay lead generators if they do not recommend the lawyer, payments follow Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and their communications follow 7.1 (7.2, comment [5]). Intermediary organizations must meet six conditions (7.4(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Norte: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(4) (North Carolina State Bar) · North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2, comment [5] (North Carolina State Bar)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Carolina del Norte. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Dakota del Norte
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por solicitudes telefónicas y de texto (hasta $2.000 por infracción); sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Dakota del Norte les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni aprobación previa. Las reglas permiten a los abogados anunciarse por cualquier medio, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3, y no contienen ninguna cláusula que exija presentar ni revisar los anuncios (7.2(a)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval. The rules let lawyers advertise through any media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3, and contain no clause requiring ads to be filed or reviewed (7.2(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: presentación o revisión de anuncios · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(a) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
An ad may not be false or misleading, or likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by a named organization (7.4).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad may not be false or misleading, or likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)). Comparisons with other lawyers need factual substantiation (7.1(c)); comparisons based on an honor or accolade must name the comparing organization and be substantiated (7.1(d)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by a named organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad may not be false or misleading, or likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)). Comparisons with other lawyers need factual substantiation (7.1(c)); comparisons based on an honor or accolade must name the comparing organization and be substantiated (7.1(d)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by a named organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Norte no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: An ad may not be false or misleading, or likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)). Comparisons with other lawyers need factual substantiation (7.1(c)); comparisons based on an honor or accolade must name the comparing organization and be substantiated (7.1(d)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as patent attorney, admiralty, or certified by a named organization (7.4). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Norte no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
An ad may not be false or misleading, or likely to create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)).
Comparisons with other lawyers need factual substantiation (7.1(c)); comparisons based on an honor or accolade must name the comparing organization and be substantiated (7.1(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(b) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1(d) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for a recommendation of the lawyer's services. Exceptions: reasonable advertising costs, the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or legal service organization, and buying a practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(c)). The comment allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Norte: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(c) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(c)(2) (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov) · N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.2 comment (North Dakota Supreme Court, ndcourts.gov)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Dakota del Norte. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Ohio
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera, pero las solicitudes por lesiones dentro de los 30 días llevan un aviso fijo; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Ohio les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.5 no exigen presentar ni aprobar los anuncios de antemano. Las reglas tampoco fijan un plazo para guardar los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval of ads is required by Rules 7.1-7.5. The rules set no record-keeping period for ads either.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials are allowed (Advisory Opinion 2016-8) but one that states a settlement or verdict amount is inherently misleading even with a disclaimer; the lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on a site the lawyer controls.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Ads of results can mislead if they lead to an unjustified expectation (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Testimonials are allowed (Advisory Opinion 2016-8) but one that states a settlement or verdict amount is inherently misleading even with a disclaimer; the lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on a site the lawyer controls.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified and the ad names the certifying organization (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Ohio no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false, misleading or nonverifiable communication (7.1). Ads of results can mislead if they lead to an unjustified expectation (7.1 cmt. [3]). Testimonials are allowed (Advisory Opinion 2016-8) but one that states a settlement or verdict amount is inherently misleading even with a disclaimer; the lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on a site the lawyer controls. A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified and the ad names the certifying organization (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Ohio no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false, misleading or nonverifiable communication (7.1). Ads of results can mislead if they lead to an unjustified expectation (7.1 cmt. [3]). Testimonials are allowed (Advisory Opinion 2016-8) but one that states a settlement or verdict amount is inherently misleading even with a disclaimer; the lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on a site the lawyer controls. A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified and the ad names the certifying organization (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false, misleading or nonverifiable communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [2] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Ohio no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A lawyer may not make a false, misleading or nonverifiable communication (7.1). Ads of results can mislead if they lead to an unjustified expectation (7.1 cmt. [3]). Testimonials are allowed (Advisory Opinion 2016-8) but one that states a settlement or verdict amount is inherently misleading even with a disclaimer; the lawyer must remove false or misleading reviews on a site the lawyer controls. A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist unless certified and the ad names the certifying organization (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Ohio no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Ads of results can mislead if they lead to an unjustified expectation (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Advisory Opinion 2016-8 (Oct. 7, 2016)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except reasonable ad costs, a legal service plan, a nonprofit or lawyer referral service that complies with Gov.Bar R. XVI, and a practice sale (7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and the payment fits Rules 1.5 and 5.4 (7.2 cmt. [5a]). A referral service fee tied to each matter completed or to a percentage of the fee is not allowed unless the service is registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio (Advisory Opinion 2016-3).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Ohio: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(3) (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [5a] (Supreme Court of Ohio, as amended eff. Jan. 1, 2026)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Ohio. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Oklahoma
En resumen: Grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por solicitudes telefónicas ($500 o daños reales); la ley de privacidad rige desde el 1 de enero de 2027; la mayoría de las reglas de publicidad de Oklahoma aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Oklahoma les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Hoy no se pudo leer el texto de la regla de Oklahoma en una fuente oficial. El asesor de ética del Colegio de Abogados de Oklahoma describe la Regla 7.2 como una que permite anuncios «por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, incluidos los medios públicos» y no menciona ningún trámite de presentación. Se aplica la norma predeterminada de la Regla Modelo de la ABA (sin presentación).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
The Oklahoma rule text could not be read at an official source today. The Oklahoma Bar Association's ethics counsel describes Rule 7.2 as allowing ads "through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media" and mentions no filing step. The ABA Model Rule default (no filing) applies.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full.
OBA ethics counsel quotes Rule 7.1 as barring a false or misleading communication, and says Rule 7.4 requires that a specialist-certification statement say the certification is not recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Oklahoma no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full. OBA ethics counsel quotes Rule 7.1 as barring a false or misleading communication, and says Rule 7.4 requires that a specialist-certification statement say the certification is not recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The ABA Model Rule default applies for the rest.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Oklahoma no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full. OBA ethics counsel quotes Rule 7.1 as barring a false or misleading communication, and says Rule 7.4 requires that a specialist-certification statement say the certification is not recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The ABA Model Rule default applies for the rest.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Español u otro idioma
The Oklahoma rule text could not be read in full, so a clause on ads in other languages cannot be ruled out. The OBA article on Rules 7.1 to 7.5 mentions none. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Oklahoma no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full. OBA ethics counsel quotes Rule 7.1 as barring a false or misleading communication, and says Rule 7.4 requires that a specialist-certification statement say the certification is not recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The ABA Model Rule default applies for the rest.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Oklahoma no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Oklahoma no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The Oklahoma rule text on results, testimonials and specialist claims could not be read in full. OBA ethics counsel quotes Rule 7.1 as barring a false or misleading communication, and says Rule 7.4 requires that a specialist-certification statement say the certification is not recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The ABA Model Rule default applies for the rest.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5) · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
The Oklahoma rule text on paying for referrals could not be read in full. OBA ethics counsel says Rule 7.2 bars paying a person to recommend a lawyer, with exceptions for reasonable advertising costs, a legal service plan or qualified lawyer referral service, and a non-exclusive referral agreement the client is told about. The sibling dataset read "directly or indirectly" in 7.2(b). The ABA default applies for lead generators.
Regla modelo de la ABA (por defecto) · Página de Oklahoma: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Journal (April 2024), "Advertising: The Basics" by OBA ethics counsel (quotes ORPC 7.1-7.5)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Oklahoma. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Oregón
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y datos de contacto; sin período de espera; en las llamadas basta una parte, pero en persona se debe informar a todos los participantes; demandas bajo la ley del consumidor por llamadas o mensajes repetidos; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de julio de 2024.
¿Oregón les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni revisión previa. El abogado puede anunciarse por comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, incluidos los medios públicos, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3 (7.2(a)). La regla no tiene cláusula sobre guardar registros.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or advance review. A lawyer may advertise through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (7.2(a)). The rule has no record-keeping clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Oregón no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The only claims rule is the general ban: a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication, meaning one with a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or one that omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations; Rule 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Oregón no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The only claims rule is the general ban: a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication, meaning one with a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or one that omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations; Rule 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Oregón no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: The only claims rule is the general ban: a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication, meaning one with a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or one that omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations; Rule 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Oregón no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
The rules have no separate clause on past results, testimonials, comparisons or specialist designations;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comparison note (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer cannot give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except to pay reasonable advertising costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a lawyer referral service, the price of a purchased practice, or nominal gifts not intended or expected as compensation (7.2(b)). By statute, no one may pay or accept money for referring to an attorney a personal-injury or death claim (ORS 9.505). OSB opinions: a gift is prohibited if given under a promise or understanding that it would follow (Op. 2005-73); a networking association's referral requirement violates the rules (Op. 2005-175).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Oregón: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(4) (Oregon State Bar publication, as of September 3, 2026) · ORS 9.505 (Oregon Legislature)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Oregón. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Pensilvania
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre, contacto y la ciudad donde ejercen los abogados; los mensajes de texto cuentan como contacto en vivo; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; recursos de la ley del consumidor por solicitudes telefónicas, incluidos los textos; sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Pensilvania les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. El abogado puede comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio (7.2(a)). Las Reglas 7.4 y 7.7 se eliminaron el 15 de octubre de 2024. Las reglas no tienen presentación, revisión ni cargo para los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. A lawyer may communicate information about the lawyer's services through any media (7.2(a)). Rules 7.4 and 7.7 were deleted October 15, 2024. The rules have no ad filing, review or fee.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Paid endorsements are disclosed and celebrity or public-figure endorsements are barred (7.2(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The comment says reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and that a disclaimer may help (7.1, comment 3).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say "specialist" only with a Pennsylvania-approved certification, another state's certification with disclosure, or an objectively verifiable claim with a not-certified disclaimer (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Fee ads disclose extra client expenses (7.2(g)(1)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Pensilvania no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). The comment says reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and that a disclaimer may help (7.1, comment 3). Paid endorsements are disclosed and celebrity or public-figure endorsements are barred (7.2(e)). A lawyer may say "specialist" only with a Pennsylvania-approved certification, another state's certification with disclosure, or an objectively verifiable claim with a not-certified disclaimer (7.2(c)). PBA Opinion 2016-300 says releasing identifying facts of a client's matter may breach confidentiality, while a lawyer may advertise handling a type of matter.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Paid endorsements are disclosed and celebrity or public-figure endorsements are barred (7.2(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Pensilvania no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Pensilvania no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). The comment says reported results can mislead if they suggest the same result for other clients, and that a disclaimer may help (7.1, comment 3). Paid endorsements are disclosed and celebrity or public-figure endorsements are barred (7.2(e)). A lawyer may say "specialist" only with a Pennsylvania-approved certification, another state's certification with disclosure, or an objectively verifiable claim with a not-certified disclaimer (7.2(c)). PBA Opinion 2016-300 says releasing identifying facts of a client's matter may breach confidentiality, while a lawyer may advertise handling a type of matter.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 comment (3) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except reasonable advertising costs, usual charges of a lawyer referral service or legal service plan, and paying for a law practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay a lead generator if it does not recommend the lawyer and the payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4 (7.2, comment 4). Rule 7.7 on referral services was deleted October 15, 2024. PBA Opinion 2016-200 (September 2016) found that a platform's "marketing fee" that rises with the legal fee is fee-sharing with a non-lawyer (5.4(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Pensilvania: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin) · Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 comment (4) (204 Pa. Code, Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Pensilvania. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Rhode Island
En resumen: Los anuncios se presentan antes del primer uso o dentro de las 48 horas siguientes (no se indica cuota), con copias guardadas 3 años; nombre y dirección de la oficina; testimonios rotulados; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de enero de 2026.
¿Rhode Island les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios se presentan. Una copia de cada anuncio impreso (salvo las páginas amarillas), una grabación de cada anuncio de radio y una videocinta de cada anuncio de televisión se envían al Asesor Disciplinario de la Corte Suprema antes del primer uso o dentro de las 48 horas siguientes (7.2(b)). También se envía allí una copia de cada solicitación dirigida (7.3(d)). Las reglas no nombran ningún cargo ni exigen revisión antes del uso. Las copias se guardan 3 años después del último uso, con cuándo y dónde salió cada una.
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan después de usarlos por primera vez. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads are filed. A copy of each print ad (yellow pages excepted), a recording of each radio ad and a videotape of each TV ad goes to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel before or within 48 hours of first use (7.2(b)). A copy of each targeted solicitation goes there too (7.3(d)). The rules name no fee and do not require review before use. Copies are kept 3 years after last use, with when and where each ran.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: presentación o revisión de anuncios · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.2(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.2(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, with payment disclosed and a note if the speaker is not an actual client; on TV the notes run throughout the ad (7.1(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Results are misleading if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Saying a lawyer is certified as a specialist needs an approved or ABA-accredited certifier, its name, and the court's disclaimer (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
An ad that says no fee if no recovery must also say conspicuously whether the client owes costs or expenses regardless of outcome (7.2(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Dramatizations must be identified (7.1(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability among information an ad may give.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.2 cmt. [2] (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Rhode Island no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, with payment disclosed and a note if the speaker is not an actual client; on TV the notes run throughout the ad (7.1(b)). Dramatizations must be identified (7.1(c)). Results are misleading if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). Saying a lawyer is certified as a specialist needs an approved or ABA-accredited certifier, its name, and the court's disclaimer (7.4(d)). Firm names may not be comparative (7.5(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Rhode Island no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Results are misleading if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Firm names may not be comparative (7.5(a)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1(b) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.4(d) (Rhode Island Supreme Court)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.2(c)). Paying a for-profit online company that calls itself a referral service violates 7.2(c) (Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2019-03, September 12, 2019). So does paying a marketer per order another business sends (Op. 2019-04, October 10, 2019).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Rhode Island: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.2(c) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · R.I. Sup. Ct. Rules Art. V, RPC 7.2(c)(2) (Rhode Island Supreme Court) · Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Op. 2019-03 (2019-09-12)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Rhode Island. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Carolina del Sur
En resumen: Sin presentación, con copias guardadas 2 años; ciudad de la oficina en cada anuncio; los anuncios deben ser principalmente informativos; espera de 30 días; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas y mensajes ($1.000 por infracción); sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Carolina del Sur les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. Las reglas no fijan presentación ni aprobación previa. El abogado revisa cada anuncio antes de que salga y guarda una copia o grabación durante 2 años después de su último uso, con un registro de cuándo y dónde salió (7.2(b)). El abogado que usa solicitación escrita, grabada o electrónica también guarda durante 2 años un archivo sobre su fundamento (7.3(c)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. The rules set no filing or pre-approval. The lawyer reviews each ad before it goes out and keeps a copy or recording for two years after its last use, with a record of when and where it ran (7.2(b)). A lawyer using written, recorded or electronic solicitation also keeps a two-year file on the basis for it (7.3(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: presentación o revisión de anuncios · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.2(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.2(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, must disclose payment, must disclose a non-client speaker, and must clearly state that one result does not necessarily indicate similar results for other clients (7.1(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)) or compare services unless the comparison can be substantiated (7.1(c)).
A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, must disclose payment, must disclose a non-client speaker, and must clearly state that one result does not necessarily indicate similar results for other clients (7.1(d)).
A nickname implying an ability to get results is barred (7.1(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer not certified under the state program may not use "certified," "specialist," "expert" or "authority" (7.4(b)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Fee ads disclose whether the client owes expenses on top of the fee (7.2(f)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)) or compare services unless the comparison can be substantiated (7.1(c)). A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, must disclose payment, must disclose a non-client speaker, and must clearly state that one result does not necessarily indicate similar results for other clients (7.1(d)). A nickname implying an ability to get results is barred (7.1(e)). A lawyer not certified under the state program may not use "certified," "specialist," "expert" or "authority" (7.4(b)). Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-02 allows advertising "best lawyers" or "super lawyers" designations when the standards are objective and disclosed, the date and source are shown, and nothing was paid for the designation.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false, misleading or deceptive communications (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1 (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)) or compare services unless the comparison can be substantiated (7.1(c)). A testimonial or endorsement must be identified as one, must disclose payment, must disclose a non-client speaker, and must clearly state that one result does not necessarily indicate similar results for other clients (7.1(d)). A nickname implying an ability to get results is barred (7.1(e)). A lawyer not certified under the state program may not use "certified," "specialist," "expert" or "authority" (7.4(b)). Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-02 allows advertising "best lawyers" or "super lawyers" designations when the standards are objective and disclosed, the date and source are shown, and nothing was paid for the designation.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Carolina del Sur no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication may not create an unjustified expectation about results (7.1(b)) or compare services unless the comparison can be substantiated (7.1(c)).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-02 allows advertising "best lawyers" or "super lawyers" designations when the standards are objective and disclosed, the date and source are shown, and nothing was paid for the designation.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(b) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.1(d)(4) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except the reasonable cost of permitted ads, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service that is not itself breaking a rule, and paying for a law practice under Rule 1.17 (7.2(c)). A lawyer may pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, payment fits Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its communications fit Rule 7.1 (7.2, comment 7). Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 16-06 found a directory's per-service "marketing fee" on a fixed-fee program breaks the fee-sharing rule (5.4(a)). Opinion 21-01 allowed a flat $249 annual fee to be listed as a provider on a bank's form.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Carolina del Sur: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.2(c) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.2(c)(2) (South Carolina Judicial Branch) · South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 407, RPC 7.2 comment (7) (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Carolina del Sur. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Dakota del Sur
En resumen: Los anuncios no se presentan, pero cada solicitación escrita o grabada se deposita en el Colegio de Abogados con 30 días de anticipación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; una declaración fija para los testimonios; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas de consumidores por llamadas no solicitadas; sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Dakota del Sur les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios (a diferencia de las solicitaciones) no se presentan; el abogado guarda una copia o grabación durante 2 años después del último uso, con cuándo y dónde salió (7.2(c)). Una copia de cada solicitación escrita o grabada debe depositarse con el secretario-tesorero del Colegio de Abogados, por correo con acuse de recibo, al menos 30 días antes de que salga (7.3(c)). No se indica ningún cargo.
Según nuestro resumen, solo se presentan las solicitudes dirigidas (cartas o correos a posibles clientes). Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads (as opposed to solicitations) are not filed; the lawyer keeps a copy or recording for two years after last use, with when and where it ran (7.2(c)). A copy of every written or recorded solicitation must be deposited with the State Bar's secretary-treasurer, by mail with return receipt, at least 30 days before it goes out (7.3(c)). No fee is stated.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: presentación o revisión de anuncios · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(c) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
They may not predict or guarantee results, use self-laudatory statements the public cannot verify, or claim past success without a disclaimer that each case is decided on its merits (7.1(c)(2)-(4)).
Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows; certification claims need an approved or ABA-accredited body, named in the ad (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads must be predominantly informational (7.1(b)). They may not predict or guarantee results, use self-laudatory statements the public cannot verify, or claim past success without a disclaimer that each case is decided on its merits (7.1(c)(2)-(4)). Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows; certification claims need an approved or ABA-accredited body, named in the ad (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads must be predominantly informational (7.1(b)). They may not predict or guarantee results, use self-laudatory statements the public cannot verify, or claim past success without a disclaimer that each case is decided on its merits (7.1(c)(2)-(4)). Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows; certification claims need an approved or ABA-accredited body, named in the ad (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(c)) applies to every language. Listing foreign language ability is a presumptively permitted content item (7.2(f)(4)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(f)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads must be predominantly informational (7.1(b)). They may not predict or guarantee results, use self-laudatory statements the public cannot verify, or claim past success without a disclaimer that each case is decided on its merits (7.1(c)(2)-(4)). Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows; certification claims need an approved or ABA-accredited body, named in the ad (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Sur no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Nuestro resumen de Dakota del Sur no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: Ads must be predominantly informational (7.1(b)). They may not predict or guarantee results, use self-laudatory statements the public cannot verify, or claim past success without a disclaimer that each case is decided on its merits (7.1(c)(2)-(4)). Testimonials need factual support and a disclaimer substantively like "This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guaranty, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter" (7.1(c)(12)); paid testimonials and non-client testimonials must be conspicuously disclosed (7.1(c)(13)-(14)). A lawyer may not state or imply being a specialist except as 7.4 allows; certification claims need an approved or ABA-accredited body, named in the ad (7.4(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(12) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1(c)(13) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except for reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a not-for-profit legal service organization, the usual charges of an approved not-for-profit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) lawyer referral service, practice-sale payments under Rule 1.17, and non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements when the client is told of the agreement; the 7.1(c)(13) disclosed-testimonial exception also applies (7.2(d)). A lawyer may not accept employment from someone who came through conduct prohibited by Rule 7.2 (7.2(j)). The rules have no clause on lead generators.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Dakota del Sur: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(d) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(d)(2) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules) · South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(d)(4) (SDCL 16-18-A, South Dakota Legislature, Supreme Court rules)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Dakota del Sur. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Tennessee
En resumen: Sin presentación, pero con copias guardadas 2 años; nombre y datos de contacto; espera de 30 días para solicitar por lesiones, divorcio, compensación laboral o muerte; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 1 de julio de 2025; algunas reglas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Tennessee les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni aprobación previa. El abogado guarda una copia o grabación de cada anuncio durante 2 años después de su último uso, con cuándo y dónde apareció (7.1(c)). De cada solicitación dirigida escrita, de audio, de video o electrónica se guarda 2 años una copia, con el destinatario (7.3(e)).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval. A lawyer keeps a copy or recording of each ad for 2 years after its last use, with when and where it appeared (7.1(c)). A copy of each targeted written, audio, video or electronic solicitation, with the recipient, is kept 2 years (7.3(e)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(c) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.3(e) (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Calling oneself a specialist needs certification by an ABA-accredited body, registered with the Tennessee CLE Commission (cmt. [9]-[10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Tennessee no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1(a)). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A ranking or title is allowed if the organization inquired into the lawyer's fitness and does not confer it indiscriminately or for a price (cmt. [8]). Calling oneself a specialist needs certification by an ABA-accredited body, registered with the Tennessee CLE Commission (cmt. [9]-[10]). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Tennessee no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1(a)). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A ranking or title is allowed if the organization inquired into the lawyer's fitness and does not confer it indiscriminately or for a price (cmt. [8]). Calling oneself a specialist needs certification by an ABA-accredited body, registered with the Tennessee CLE Commission (cmt. [9]-[10]). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(a)) applies to every language. Comment [6] to 7.1 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability among information an ad may give.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [6] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Tennessee no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1(a)). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). A ranking or title is allowed if the organization inquired into the lawyer's fitness and does not confer it indiscriminately or for a price (cmt. [8]). Calling oneself a specialist needs certification by an ABA-accredited body, registered with the Tennessee CLE Commission (cmt. [9]-[10]). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Tennessee no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1(a) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [3] (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1 cmt. [8] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value to a non-firm person for recommending or securing the lawyer's services, except ad costs, an intermediary organization's usual charges under RPC 7.6, a practice sale, sponsorship fees or charitable gifts that buy publicity, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.3(f)). A lawyer may pay for client leads, but not a lead generator that states or implies it recommends the lawyer (7.3 cmt. [10]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Tennessee: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.3(f) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.3(f)(2) (Tennessee Supreme Court) · Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.3 cmt. [10] (Tennessee Supreme Court)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Tennessee. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Texas
En resumen: Cada anuncio no exento se presenta dentro de los 10 días siguientes ($100); se nombra a un abogado responsable y el lugar principal de ejercicio; prohibición penal de 31 días de solicitar clientes por lesiones; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; los textos cuentan como solicitud telefónica, con demandas privadas; ley de privacidad en vigor.
¿Texas les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Salvo que esté exento, el abogado presenta cada anuncio o comunicación de solicitación al Comité de Revisión de Publicidad del Colegio de Abogados a más tardar 10 días después de su difusión, con una copia, una solicitud y un cargo (Regla 7.04(a)). El Colegio fija el cargo en $100 y dice que puede cobrar una multa de $250 más el cargo de $100 por un anuncio no exento sin presentar. La aprobación previa puede pedirse al menos 30 días antes del primer uso; una conclusión de cumplimiento obliga a favor del abogado (7.04(c)). Quedan exentos: el contenido del sitio web distinto de la página de inicio, las comunicaciones en redes sociales que no ofrecen expresamente servicios legales y son principalmente informativas, y los anuncios limitados a lo básico listado en la Regla 7.05.
Según nuestro resumen, los anuncios se presentan después de usarlos por primera vez. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Unless exempt, a lawyer files each ad or solicitation communication with the State Bar's Advertising Review Committee no later than 10 days after dissemination, with a copy, an application and a fee (Rule 7.04(a)). The State Bar lists the fee at $100 and says it may assess a $250 fine plus the $100 fee for an unfiled non-exempt ad. Pre-approval may be requested at least 30 days before first use; a finding of compliance binds in the lawyer's favor (7.04(c)). Exempt items include website content other than the homepage, social-media communications that do not expressly offer legal services and are mainly informational, and ads limited to the basics listed in Rule 7.05.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.04(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.04(c) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication may not be false or misleading or substantially likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Rule 7.01(a)).
A truthful report of results can mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients; a disclaimer may cure that (7.01 cmt 5).
A lawyer may claim credit for a past verdict or settlement only if the lawyer played a substantial role, such as lead counsel (7.01 cmt 10).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say the lawyer does or does not practice in a field but may not state certification or special competence, except "board certified" through the Texas Board of Legal Specialization or an organization it accredits (7.02(b)).
"Practices", "focuses" or "concentrates" in an area must rest on the lawyer's experience, training or education (7.02 cmt 3).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
An ad that mentions contingent fees must say whether the client pays other expenses such as litigation costs (7.02(c)).
A lawyer who advertises a specific fee or range follows it while the ad is expected to run, up to one year (7.02(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Texas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading or substantially likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Rule 7.01(a)). A truthful report of results can mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients; a disclaimer may cure that (7.01 cmt 5). A lawyer may claim credit for a past verdict or settlement only if the lawyer played a substantial role, such as lead counsel (7.01 cmt 10). A lawyer may say the lawyer does or does not practice in a field but may not state certification or special competence, except "board certified" through the Texas Board of Legal Specialization or an organization it accredits (7.02(b)). "Practices", "focuses" or "concentrates" in an area must rest on the lawyer's experience, training or education (7.02 cmt 3). Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (7.01 cmt 7). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Español u otro idioma
A statement or disclaimer the rules require must be clear enough for an ordinary person to understand and made in each language used in the communication. A statement that a language is spoken or understood does not require a statement or disclaimer in that language (Rule 7.01(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(d) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(d) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Texas no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading or substantially likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Rule 7.01(a)). A truthful report of results can mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients; a disclaimer may cure that (7.01 cmt 5). A lawyer may claim credit for a past verdict or settlement only if the lawyer played a substantial role, such as lead counsel (7.01 cmt 10). A lawyer may say the lawyer does or does not practice in a field but may not state certification or special competence, except "board certified" through the Texas Board of Legal Specialization or an organization it accredits (7.02(b)). "Practices", "focuses" or "concentrates" in an area must rest on the lawyer's experience, training or education (7.02 cmt 3). Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (7.01 cmt 7). The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Texas no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication may not be false or misleading or substantially likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Rule 7.01(a)).
Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (7.01 cmt 7).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01(a) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 5 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 cmt 10 (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not pay or offer anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting or referring prospective clients, except nominal thank-you gifts (Rule 7.03(e)). Reasonable fees for advertising and public relations, and the usual charges of a lawyer referral service that meets Texas law, are allowed (7.03(e)(1)). Non-exclusive reciprocal referrals the client is told about are allowed if the lawyer uses independent judgment (7.03(e)(2)). A lawyer may pay for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and the payment fits Rule 5.04(a) and (c) (7.03 cmt 13). Under Occupations Code 952.101, a lawyer referral service needs a State Bar certificate; the service must be run by a governmental entity or a qualifying nonprofit (952.102), and "referral service" covers anyone who refers potential clients to lawyers (952.002). Paying anyone to solicit employment is a third-degree felony (Penal Code 38.12(a)(4), (f)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Texas: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.03(e) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.03(e)(1) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules) · Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.03(e)(2)(iii) (effective March 7, 2025; State Bar of Texas posting of the Supreme Court of Texas rules)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Texas. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Utah
En resumen: Sin presentación; ninguna regla exige nombre, dirección ni rótulo en los anuncios; espera de 30 días para el contacto directo por desastres, lesiones o muerte; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por solicitudes con marcadores automáticos; ley de privacidad en vigor desde el 31 de diciembre de 2023; algunas reglas aún no están definidas.
¿Utah les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. La Regla 7.1 no tiene paso de presentación, revisión ni conservación de copias, y las Reglas 7.2 y 7.3 están reservadas (sin texto).
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. Rule 7.1 has no filing, review or copy-keeping step, and Rules 7.2 and 7.3 are reserved (no text).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1, Communications concerning a lawyer's services (Utah Courts, effective 5/1/2024) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.2 (Utah Courts)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A communication is false or misleading if it creates an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or has a testimonial or endorsement that breaks any part of Rule 7.1 (7.1(a)(2)-(3)).
Rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is false or misleading if it creates an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or has a testimonial or endorsement that breaks any part of Rule 7.1 (7.1(a)(2)-(3)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say he or she specializes based on experience, training and education, but may say certified only if an objective entity certified the lawyer and the ad names it (cmt. [5]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Utah no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it creates an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or has a testimonial or endorsement that breaks any part of Rule 7.1 (7.1(a)(2)-(3)). Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (cmt. [4]). A lawyer may say he or she specializes based on experience, training and education, but may say certified only if an objective entity certified the lawyer and the ad names it (cmt. [5]). Rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Utah no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it creates an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or has a testimonial or endorsement that breaks any part of Rule 7.1 (7.1(a)(2)-(3)). Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (cmt. [4]). A lawyer may say he or she specializes based on experience, training and education, but may say certified only if an objective entity certified the lawyer and the ad names it (cmt. [5]). Rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1(a)) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a) (Utah Courts)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Utah no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it creates an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or has a testimonial or endorsement that breaks any part of Rule 7.1 (7.1(a)(2)-(3)). Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (cmt. [4]). A lawyer may say he or she specializes based on experience, training and education, but may say certified only if an objective entity certified the lawyer and the ad names it (cmt. [5]). Rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Utah no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead (cmt. [4]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Utah: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(2)-(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1(a)(3) (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.1 cmt. [5] (Utah Courts)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
Until November 1, 2026: Rule 7.2 is reserved, Rule 5.4(b) lets a lawyer permit a person to recommend the lawyer, and the comment to 5.4 says paragraph (c) lets lawyers pay for client referrals if reasonable, authorized and disclosed in writing. The Bar's Op. 25-02 (August 13, 2025) says referral fees to lawyers and non-lawyers are allowed under the general rules. On July 31, 2026 the Supreme Court adopted amended Rules 1.0, 1.5 and 5.4 and new Rule 5.8 (fee sharing between lawyers), effective November 1, 2026. A draft of Rule 5.4 posted with the order says referral fees are prohibited.
Sin resolver · Página de Utah: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Utah SCRP Rule 3-7.2 (Utah Courts) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-5.4(b) (Utah Courts, effective 5/1/2021) · Utah SCRP Rule 3-5.4 cmt. [3] (Utah Courts)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Utah. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Vermont
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; demandas privadas por llamadas de telemercadeo ($500 por una primera infracción); ley de privacidad y datos de salud del consumidor desde el 1 de enero de 2028; algunas reglas aún no se leen en la fuente oficial.
¿Vermont les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. La Regla 7.2 permite al abogado anunciarse por cualquier comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3, y no fija paso de presentación, aprobación previa ni conservación de copias. La Regla 7.3 tampoco lo fija para las solicitaciones dirigidas.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. Rule 7.2 lets a lawyer advertise by any written, recorded or electronic communication, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3, and sets no filing, pre-approval or copy-keeping step. Rule 7.3 sets none for targeted solicitations either.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(c) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Saying a lawyer is a certified specialist needs a named certifier, plus a statement that Vermont has no procedure for approving certifiers unless the certifier is ABA-accredited (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Vermont no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). Saying a lawyer is a certified specialist needs a named certifier, plus a statement that Vermont has no procedure for approving certifiers unless the certifier is ABA-accredited (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Vermont no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). Saying a lawyer is a certified specialist needs a named certifier, plus a statement that Vermont has no procedure for approving certifiers unless the certifier is ABA-accredited (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability among information an ad may give.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [2] (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Vermont no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). Saying a lawyer is a certified specialist needs a named certifier, plus a statement that Vermont has no procedure for approving certifiers unless the certifier is ABA-accredited (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Vermont no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d)(1) (Vermont Supreme Court)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.2(b)). The Vermont Bar Association's ethics opinions say a paid listing sold by area in an app that recommends no lawyer is advertising, not a referral service (Op. 2014-3), and that splitting ad costs with a nonlawyer is allowed if the ads imply no partnership (Op. 2012-1).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Vermont: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Vermont Supreme Court) · Vermont Bar Association advisory ethics opinion 2014-3 (an ethics opinion of a voluntary bar)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Vermont. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Virginia
En resumen: Sin presentación; sin cláusula que exija nombre o descargo en los anuncios; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas privadas por llamadas y mensajes ($500 a $5.000 por infracción); Ley de Protección de Datos del Consumidor en el Código.
¿Virginia les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentación ni revisión. La Regla 7.2, la regla de publicidad, está eliminada, y las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3 no tienen requisito de presentación, revisión ni conservación de copias para anuncios o solicitaciones.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or review is required. Rule 7.2, the advertising rule, is deleted, and Rules 7.1 and 7.3 have no filing, review or copy-keeping requirement for ads or solicitations.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (note) (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [2] says reporting achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
Ethics opinion LEO 1750 says advertising specific or cumulative case results can mislead, an actor shown as a lawyer or client needs a disclosure, and a listing in a publication such as Best Lawyers may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may say he or she is a specialist by experience, training or education, or certified by a named entity, if not false or misleading (7.1 cmt [4]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Virginia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). Comment [2] says reporting achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. A lawyer may say he or she is a specialist by experience, training or education, or certified by a named entity, if not false or misleading (7.1 cmt [4]). Ethics opinion LEO 1750 says advertising specific or cumulative case results can mislead, an actor shown as a lawyer or client needs a disclosure, and a listing in a publication such as Best Lawyers may be advertised. The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Ethics opinion LEO 1750 says advertising specific or cumulative case results can mislead, an actor shown as a lawyer or client needs a disclosure, and a listing in a publication such as Best Lawyers may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Virginia no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). Comment [2] says reporting achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. A lawyer may say he or she is a specialist by experience, training or education, or certified by a named entity, if not false or misleading (7.1 cmt [4]). Ethics opinion LEO 1750 says advertising specific or cumulative case results can mislead, an actor shown as a lawyer or client needs a disclosure, and a listing in a publication such as Best Lawyers may be advertised. The rules do not ban testimonials.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Virginia no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [2] says reporting achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
Ethics opinion LEO 1750 says advertising specific or cumulative case results can mislead, an actor shown as a lawyer or client needs a disclosure, and a listing in a publication such as Best Lawyers may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [2] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1750 (Virginia State Bar, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate or promise anything of value to a non-employee, non-firm person for recommending the lawyer, except: reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service, a practice sale under Rule 1.17, and nominal gifts of gratitude (7.3(d)). Comment [4] allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer. LEO 1885 (online matching service): a marketing fee tied to the legal fee shares fees with a nonlawyer, and the lawyer must safeguard prepaid fees. LEO 1846: joining a lead-sharing group that requires members to pass leads is unethical.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(d) (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(d)(4) (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia) · Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3 cmt [4] (Virginia State Bar, complete Rules effective July 27, 2026; adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Virginia. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Washington
En resumen: Sin presentación; sin cláusula que exija nombre o rótulo en los anuncios; sin período de espera fijo; grabación con el consentimiento de todas las partes; demandas privadas por solicitudes telefónicas ($1.000 por infracción); Ley Mi Salud, Mis Datos con prohibición de geovallas a 2.000 pies.
¿Washington les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
No se exige presentación ni revisión previa de anuncios ni solicitaciones. Las RPC 7.1 y 7.3 no tienen cláusula de presentación ni de conservación de copias; las RPC 7.2, 7.4 y 7.5 están reservadas.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or advance review is required for ads or solicitations. RPC 7.1 and 7.3 have no filing or copy-keeping clause; RPC 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 are reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.2 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.3(a) (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no testimonial ban;
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Comment [3] says reporting a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
Comment [8] lets a lawyer say he or she is a specialist, subject to the false-or-misleading standard, and states certification may rest on an approved or ABA-accredited body whose name is in the communication.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Washington no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). Comment [3] says reporting a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. Comment [8] lets a lawyer say he or she is a specialist, subject to the false-or-misleading standard, and states certification may rest on an approved or ABA-accredited body whose name is in the communication. The rules have no testimonial ban; RPC 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Washington no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). Comment [3] says reporting a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. Comment [8] lets a lawyer say he or she is a specialist, subject to the false-or-misleading standard, and states certification may rest on an approved or ABA-accredited body whose name is in the communication. The rules have no testimonial ban; RPC 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [6] lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [6] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Washington no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading (7.1). Comment [3] says reporting a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead. Comment [8] lets a lawyer say he or she is a specialist, subject to the false-or-misleading standard, and states certification may rest on an approved or ABA-accredited body whose name is in the communication. The rules have no testimonial ban; RPC 7.4 is reserved.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Washington no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Comment [3] says reporting a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it suggests the same results for other clients, and unsubstantiated comparisons may mislead.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [3] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.1 cmt [8] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a non-firm person for recommending or securing the lawyer's services, except: reasonable ad costs (including online group advertising), the usual charges of a legal service plan or not-for-profit referral service (and fee-sharing with a qualifying not-for-profit referral service), practice sales, non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements the client is told about, and nominal gifts (7.3(b)). Comment [14] allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer. WSBA Advisory Opinion 201401 (2014, written under the former RPC 7.2(b)) treats a flat, monthly or per-click fee to a lead service as permitted payment for dissemination.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Washington: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.3(b) (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.3(b)(2) (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov) · Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 7.3 cmt [14] (Washington Supreme Court, courts.wa.gov)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Washington. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Virginia Occidental
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; Virginia Occidental no reconoce especialistas; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; demandas de consumidores por abusos de telemercadeo (multa de $100 a $3.000); sin ley integral de privacidad.
¿Virginia Occidental les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Ninguna. La Regla 7.2 permite al abogado anunciarse por cualquier comunicación escrita, grabada o electrónica, sujeto a las Reglas 7.1 y 7.3, y no fija paso de presentación, aprobación previa ni conservación de copias. La Regla 7.3 tampoco lo fija para las solicitaciones dirigidas.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
None. Rule 7.2 lets a lawyer advertise by any written, recorded or electronic communication, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3, and sets no filing, pre-approval or copy-keeping step. Rule 7.3 sets none for targeted solicitations either.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: presentación o revisión de anuncios · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(a) (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.3(c) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
West Virginia does not recognize specialization, so a lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Virginia Occidental no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). West Virginia does not recognize specialization, so a lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Virginia Occidental no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). West Virginia does not recognize specialization, so a lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability among information an ad may give.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [2] (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Virginia Occidental no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication may not be false or misleading, or omit a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]). West Virginia does not recognize specialization, so a lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist (7.4(d)). Firm names may not violate 7.1 (7.5(a)). The rules have no testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Virginia Occidental no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
Results may mislead if they create an unjustified expectation of the same outcome, and an unsubstantiated comparison may mislead (7.1 cmt. [3]).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1 cmt. [3] (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4(d) (West Virginia Judiciary)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, a practice sale, and non-exclusive reciprocal referrals with client notice (7.2(b)). A lawyer may pay for client leads if the generator does not recommend the lawyer, imply a recommendation or hide that the lawyer paid (7.2 cmt. [5]). The Lawyer Disciplinary Board's L.E.O. 2018-01 (entered June 27, 2018) says a per-case "marketing fee" paid to a for-profit matching service is an impermissible referral fee and endorsement fee.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Virginia Occidental: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b) (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (West Virginia Judiciary) · W. Va. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 cmt. [5] (West Virginia Judiciary)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Virginia Occidental. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Wisconsin
En resumen: Los anuncios no se presentan, pero las solicitaciones sí, dentro de los 5 días siguientes; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera fijo; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones.
¿Wisconsin les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Los anuncios no se presentan (SCR 20:7.2). Una copia de cada solicitación escrita, grabada o electrónica dirigida a alguien que se sabe que necesita servicios legales en un asunto particular debe presentarse a la Oficina de Regulación de Abogados dentro de los 5 días siguientes a su difusión (7.3(c)). Para los envíos de formulario estándar se presenta una copia de cada versión y el abogado guarda los nombres y direcciones a los que se envió (comentario del comité). La regla no indica ningún cargo.
Según nuestro resumen, solo se presentan las solicitudes dirigidas (cartas o correos a posibles clientes). Texto del resumen, en inglés:
Ads are not filed (SCR 20:7.2). A copy of every written, recorded or electronic solicitation of someone known to need legal services in a particular matter must be filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation within five days of its dissemination (7.3(c)). For standard form mailings, one copy of each version is filed and the lawyer keeps the names and addresses mailed to (committee comment). No fee is stated in the rule.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.3(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.3 cmt (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)).
Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited organization certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Wisconsin no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)). A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited organization certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Wisconsin no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)). A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless an approved or ABA-accredited organization certified the lawyer and the ad names it (7.4(d)). Testimonials are not banned.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language. Comment [2] to 7.2 lists a lawyer's foreign language ability as information that may be advertised.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1 (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.2 cmt [2] (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Wisconsin no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
A communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, compares services without factual support, or contains a paid testimonial or paid endorsement without identifying that payment was made or, if the speaker is not an actual client, without saying so (7.1(b)-(d)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(c) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.1(d) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not give anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, except: reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, practice sales under 1.17, and non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreements with client informed consent, no interference with independent judgment, and protection of client information (7.2(b)). Comment [5] allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and its communications meet Rule 7.1.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wisconsin: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.2(b) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.2(b)(4) (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20) · Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, SCR 20:7.2 cmt [5] (Wisconsin Court System, chapter 20)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Wisconsin. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
Wyoming
En resumen: Sin presentación; nombre y dirección de la oficina; sin período de espera; grabación con el consentimiento de una parte; sin ley integral de privacidad, solo una ley de aviso de filtraciones informáticas.
¿Wyoming les pide a los abogados presentar sus anuncios?
Sin presentación ni aprobación previa. El abogado puede comunicar información sobre sus servicios por cualquier medio (7.2(a)). Las Reglas 7.1 a 7.3 no contienen ninguna cláusula que exija presentar ni revisar los anuncios.
Según nuestro resumen, el estado no pide presentar los anuncios. Texto del resumen, en inglés:
No filing or pre-approval. A lawyer may communicate information about services through any media (7.2(a)). Rules 7.1 to 7.3 contain no clause requiring ads to be filed or reviewed.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: presentación o revisión de anuncios · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(a) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Testimonios o recomendaciones de clientes
The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Resultados o veredictos anteriores
The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
«Especialista», «experto» o «con certificación»
A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless certified by an organization approved by an appropriate authority or accredited by the ABA, and the communication names that organization (7.2(c)).
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
«No cobramos si no gana»
Nuestro resumen de Wyoming no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless certified by an organization approved by an appropriate authority or accredited by the ABA, and the communication names that organization (7.2(c)). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation. The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Dramatizaciones o actores
Nuestro resumen de Wyoming no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless certified by an organization approved by an appropriate authority or accredited by the ABA, and the communication names that organization (7.2(c)). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation. The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Español u otro idioma
The rules have no clause on ads in other languages. The general ban on false or misleading communication (7.1) applies to every language.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: anuncios en español y otros idiomas · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Un vocero pagado o una celebridad
Nuestro resumen de Wyoming no tiene una línea aparte sobre esto. Su regla general sobre afirmaciones, de la misma fuente, dice: A communication is false or misleading if it has a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading (7.1). A lawyer may not state or imply being certified as a specialist unless certified by an organization approved by an appropriate authority or accredited by the ABA, and the communication names that organization (7.2(c)). The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation. The rules have no separate testimonial clause.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Una persona o una voz creada con IA
Nuestro resumen de Wyoming no tiene una regla escrita sobre personas o voces creadas con IA en los anuncios. La regla sobre anuncios engañosos se les sigue aplicando.
Los colegios de abogados que abordan el tema tratan un sitio web o un chatbot de admisión como comunicación propia de la firma: no debe engañar ni dar asesoría legal, Florida dice que debe identificarse como IA, y un abogado debe supervisarlo (Florida Op. 24-1, Oregon Op. 2026-208, Alabama Op. 2026-01 y WSBA AO 202505). Ninguna opinión de un colegio de abogados que hayamos encontrado trata principalmente de imágenes o voces creadas con IA en anuncios. (The Florida Bar, Board of Governors (Review Committee on Professional Ethics), 24-1 (2024-01-19) · Oregon State Bar, Board of Governors (Legal Ethics Committee), 2026-208 (2026-02))
-
Una afirmación comparativa
The comment says a truthful report of past results can mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: resultados, testimonios y afirmaciones de «especialista» · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.1 (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(c)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
-
Un servicio de referencia o de contactos
A lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. Exceptions: reasonable ad costs, the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, buying a practice, a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is told about, and nominal gifts (7.2(b)). The comment allows paying for client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer.
Fuente primaria leída · Página de Wyoming: servicios de referencia y generadores de contactos · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(b) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(b)(2) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26) · Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, Rule 7.2(b)(5) (Wyoming Supreme Court, wyocourts.gov PDF, eff. 9-21-26)
Verificado el 28 de octubre de 2026. Todo lo que tenemos sobre Wyoming. No es asesoría legal; consulte con su abogado.
De dónde salen estas reglas
Cada regla indica cómo la obtuvimos: una fuente primaria que leímos (la regla, la ley o la página del colegio de abogados), una fuente secundaria (un resumen de otros), la regla modelo de la ABA que aplica por defecto, o una pregunta abierta. Los mismos datos son gratis como archivos y un conector de IA, y la biblioteca completa está en reglas de publicidad para abogados por estado. Para los pasos antes de publicar un anuncio, vea la lista para revisar el texto de los anuncios.
Otra herramienta gratis: el mapa de demanda en español. También hay una tarjeta de reglas para insertar en su propio sitio.
Preguntas frecuentes
¿El verificador me dice si mi anuncio está permitido?
No. Le muestra lo que dicen las reglas de su estado sobre cada cosa que lleva su anuncio, con la fuente. Si el anuncio puede salir lo decide el abogado responsable, el colegio de abogados de su estado o su propio asesor legal.
¿De dónde sale el texto de las reglas?
De nuestra biblioteca de reglas de publicidad para abogados de cada estado y de DC. Cada línea indica cómo la obtuvimos: una fuente primaria que leímos, un resumen secundario, la regla modelo de la ABA por defecto o una pregunta abierta.
¿Tengo que enviar mi anuncio al colegio de abogados?
En algunos estados, sí. El verificador muestra el deber de presentar o revisar anuncios de cada estado, cuándo aplica y la tarifa cuando la hay, con un enlace a la página del propio colegio.
¿El verificador guarda lo que marco?
No. Funciona en su navegador, y nada de lo que elige se nos envía ni se guarda.
¿Qué tan al día están las reglas?
Cada estado muestra el día en que lo revisamos por última vez. Cuando cambia una regla, actualizamos la biblioteca y anotamos el cambio en Rule Watch.
Gratis
Pida su revisión gratis.
Envíenos el sitio web de su firma. Probative Growth graba un video de 90 segundos de lo que ven los clientes cuando la buscan, y se lo envía con un resumen de una página en 2 días hábiles. Sin accesos y sin necesidad de llamada.
¿No sabe por dónde empezar? Responda 7 preguntas ¿Listo para conversar? Hable con nosotros O vea qué dice la IA de su firma
Su revisión gratis: Cubre su perfil de Google, su sitio web, su teléfono y sus anuncios, con información pública.