On this page · 8 sections
Lawyers may advertise on TV in every state, so the questions are about paperwork and content. A few states file or review ads with the bar; many limit past results, testimonials and actors; several have rules for drug- and device-lawsuit ads. Each table cell comes from our state rules library and links its source.
Key facts
- 7 states file ads with the bar or its commission: Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Rhode Island and Texas.
- 4 more file only targeted solicitations (letters and messages to a named person), not TV ads: Indiana, Maryland, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
- 5 states have their own rule for drug- and device-lawsuit ads: Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Can lawyers advertise on TV?
Yes. State rules now treat broadcast like any other channel. Kansas’s commentary, taken from the ABA’s, puts it plainly: “Television, the Internet, and other forms of electronic communication are now among the most powerful media for getting information to the public” (Kansas Rule 7.2, comment). California’s code counts television as an “electronic medium” alongside radio and computer networks (§6157).
What changes from state to state is the paperwork before the spot airs and what the spot may say about results, clients and the people on screen.
Which states review a TV ad before or after it airs?
A small group of states files lawyer ads with the bar or a commission, and the facts above list them. Florida is the strictest on timing: ads that go beyond its safe-harbor content are filed “at least 20 days before their first use” (The Florida Bar). Rhode Island asks for “a videotape of each television advertisement” (Rhode Island Rule 7.2(b)).
Filing is not approval. A bar’s review finds problems; it doesn’t make the ad compliant in every other state where it runs. Our guide on how to submit ads to the bar walks through each filing state’s form and fee.
What can a TV ad say about results, testimonials and actors?
This is where states differ most. The right-hand column of the table below holds each state’s cell on past results, client testimonials, endorsements, actors and “specialist” claims with the status of the source we read. Where a cell is marked D, we have not yet read that state’s own text.
Where we have read the state’s own text, common patterns include: results must be real and verifiable, often with a statement that outcomes depend on the facts of each case; testimonials must come from actual clients; in some states, actors and dramatizations carry a disclosure; and a fee offer carries a cost statement. In Texas, an ad that offers a contingent fee “must state whether the client will be obligated to pay for other expenses, such as the costs of litigation” (Texas Rule 7.02(c)).
Every state and DC: filing and content
Each cell shows how we checked it: P is the primary source, S a secondary summary we verify before relying on it for a client, D the ABA model default where we have not yet read the state’s own text. The “source” link opens the document that cell was read from.
| State | Ad filing or review | Results, testimonials and actors |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No filing PPrimary source source | 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). PPrimary source source |
| Alaska | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Arizona | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Arkansas | No filing DABA model default source | Marked D: we haven’t checked this state’s own text on results, testimonials and specialist claims, so the ABA Model Rule default applies until we do. In practice: results only if truthful and given in context; “certified specialist” only through an approved body that the ad names. DABA model default source |
| California | No filing PPrimary source source | 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). 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)). A consumer misled by an ad may sue after a State Bar finding for $5,000 to $100,000 per unique ad or three times actual damages (6157.2(c)). PPrimary source source |
| Colorado | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Connecticut | Filed at or before first use; fee No fee PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Delaware | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| District of Columbia | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Florida | Filed before first use; fee $250 ($750 late) PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Georgia | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Hawaii | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Idaho | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Illinois | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Indiana | Only targeted solicitations filed; fee $50 (solicitations) PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Iowa | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Kansas | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Kentucky | Voluntary review; fee $75 (voluntary) PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Louisiana | Filed at or before first use; fee $175 ($275 late) PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Maine | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Maryland | Only targeted solicitations filed PPrimary source source | 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). PPrimary source source |
| Massachusetts | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Michigan | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Minnesota | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Mississippi | Filed before first use; fee $25 ($150 late) PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Missouri | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Montana | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Nebraska | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Nevada | Filed after first use; fee $100 PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| New Hampshire | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| New Jersey | No filing PPrimary source source | 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). PPrimary source source |
| New Mexico | No filing DABA model default source | Marked D: we haven’t checked this state’s own text on results, testimonials and specialist claims, so the ABA Model Rule default applies until we do. In practice: results only if truthful and given in context; “certified specialist” only through an approved body that the ad names. DABA model default source |
| New York | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| North Carolina | No filing PPrimary source source | 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]). PPrimary source source |
| North Dakota | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Ohio | No filing PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Oklahoma | No filing DABA model default source | 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. DABA model default source |
| Oregon | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Pennsylvania | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Rhode Island | Filed after first use PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| South Carolina | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| South Dakota | Only targeted solicitations filed PPrimary source source | 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)). PPrimary source source |
| Tennessee | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Texas | Filed after first use; fee $100 PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Utah | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Vermont | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Virginia | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Washington | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| West Virginia | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Wisconsin | Only targeted solicitations filed PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
| Wyoming | No filing PPrimary source source | 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. PPrimary source source |
What the table shows: filing is the exception, but a rule on results and testimonials applies almost everywhere, so a spot that runs in several states should be cut to the strictest one.
Do drug and device lawsuit ads have their own rules?
Yes, in several states. These are the ads that ask viewers who took a medicine or had a device implanted to call a firm. The states below add a statute or rule on top of the ordinary ad rules, often requiring an opening statement that the spot is a paid advertisement and a warning not to stop a medication without a doctor’s advice.
| State | Drug and device lawsuit ads |
|---|---|
| Florida | Lawsuit ads about drugs or devices open with a paid-advertisement statement, carry a consult-your-physician statement, FDA status and sponsor and attorney information, and may not use protected health information without written authorization (Fla. Stat. §501.139). PPrimary source source |
| Kansas | SB 150 (2022) requires a paid-advertisement statement and a prescription-drug warning, bars medical-alert and false-recall framing, and bars soliciting with health information without written authorization. SSecondary source source |
| Louisiana | SB 378 (2022) bars medical- or drug-alert framing, and prescription-drug ads need a “consult your physician” statement (R.S. 51:3221). SSecondary source source |
| Tennessee | Tennessee’s 2019 law requires a paid-advertisement statement, a don’t-stop-your-medication warning and FDA-status disclosure, bars medical-alert, agency-logo and false-recall framing, and bars soliciting with health information without authorization (Tenn. Code §47-18-3001 and following). SSecondary source source |
| West Virginia | Lawsuit ads about drugs or devices carry a paid-advertisement statement, the sponsor and the firm or referral method, “Do not stop taking a prescribed medication without first consulting with your doctor.” and FDA-approval status; using health information to solicit without written authorization is a misdemeanor (W. Va. Code §47-28, SB 136). PPrimary source source |
What about Spanish-language TV?
Every language is held to the same standard, and in several states the mandatory statements appear in the language of the ad. A Spanish spot needs its disclosures in Spanish, spoken or on screen long enough to read. Our state rules library has each state’s language cell.
What this means for your firm
- Write one compliance checklist per market, from the table rows for every state the broadcast signal reaches, before you brief the production company.
- Keep a dated copy of every version of every spot. Several states require it, and it is your best record if a complaint comes in.
- Measure TV by signed cases, not calls. Ask for the tracking number, the call log and the cases signed from each flight.
We handle your state’s ad rules for you, on TV, search and social. See where your firm stands, or get a free review of your current ads.
Reviewed by our rules reviewer. Marketing information, not legal advice. Confirm every rule with your state bar and your own counsel before an ad airs.