Lawyer marketing ethics opinions tracker, 2024–2026

As of October 25, 2026, this page lists 20 ethics opinions and court rulings from 2024 to 2026 on how lawyers may market. They cover paying for leads, reviews, bidding on a rival’s name, AI tools and what a website may say. Each one has its date, a one-line answer and a link to the bar’s own text.

Key facts

• New York’s ethics committee issued 8 of the 20 entries, including Opinion 1294 on lead generators (March 11, 2026) and Opinion 1286 on review gifts (September 29, 2025) (NYSBA).
• The Supreme Court of New Jersey held on May 22, 2025 that buying a competitor’s name as a keyword “does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the rpcs,” with a landing-page disclaimer required (NJ Courts).
• North Carolina’s 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4, adopted January 19, 2024, bars intentionally selecting another lawyer’s unique firm trade name as a keyword (NC State Bar).
• Florida Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024) says generative AI chatbots that talk to clients or third parties must follow the ad rules and say they are an AI program (Florida Bar).
• Of the five AI opinions we read, only Florida 24-1 deals with advertising directly; Kentucky E-457 says it doesn’t address the advertising rules (KBA).

The tracker at a glance

Twenty opinions and rulings, newest first. Status P means we read the opinion itself on October 25, 2026. One entry, ABA Formal Opinion 512, is marked “not re-read” because the ABA’s site blocks automated reads; it is listed for completeness and isn’t relied on elsewhere on this site.

The table’s conclusion: lead generation and keyword ads produced the sharpest rulings, while the AI opinions mostly restate general duties and leave advertising to the existing rules.

Rule changes in the same period (Alabama, Georgia, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois) are on our state advertising rules pages.

Lead generators, platforms and referral fees

Four rulings since 2024 draw the line between paying for a lead and paying for a recommendation. A platform that vets or praises lawyers is recommending them. A fee tied to the outcome or a share of the fee is fee sharing. And in Missouri, a matching service must be registered. Our page on paying for leads applies them state by state.

NYSBA Opinion 1294 (March 11, 2026): lead generators

A platform that shares anonymized workplace logs with employment lawyers, who pay to contact consenting users, is a permitted lead generator “as long as (i) the platform does not recommend the lawyer, (ii) the platform uses neutral, disclosed criteria to select the lawyer making the contact, and (iii) the payment by the lawyer does not vary depending on whether a retention results or on the amount of any resulting fee” (NYSBA 1294). Consent can’t be buried in the terms and conditions. Written under New York’s pre-June 2026 rules. New York page.

Missouri Informal Opinion 2025-05 (July 25, 2025): lead vendors as referral services

“Lawyers may only use client lead generation services if the services are ‘qualified services’ registered with the office of chief disciplinary counsel” (Missouri OLEC). The rule applies “regardless of the name or characterization of the activities or fees used by the service” (same source). Informal opinions are advisory. Missouri page.

NYSBA Opinion 1279 (February 18, 2025): “administrative” fees per referral

“A promise by a lawyer to pay a nonlawyer referrer to perform ‘administrative’ work in connection with each matter referred to the lawyer constitutes a thing of ‘value’” given for a referral, which violates Rule 7.2(a) (NYSBA 1279).

Texas Opinion 706 (February 2025): percentage fees to vendors

A lawyer who uses a nonlawyer-owned support platform “may not pay or promise to pay fees to the company based on a percentage of the revenues of the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm” (Texas PEC 706). The opinion is about support services, but marketing vendors are paid the same way. Texas page.

NYSBA Opinion 1271 (August 20, 2024): bidding platforms

A lawyer violates Rule 5.4(a) “if she pays a percentage of a legal fee to an online service owned by non-lawyers, on which attorneys can bid on potential clients’ legal services requests.” Paying for access also breaks Rule 7.2(a) “because the online service’s website claims to vet and evaluate the skill of the participating lawyers” (NYSBA 1271).

NYSBA Opinion 1267 (posted June 18, 2024): “carefully vetted” directories

A website that promises lawyers who “have excellent qualifications and are carefully vetted” is advertising for those lawyers, and their payments to it are “an improper payment for a recommendation in violation of rule 7.2(a)” (NYSBA 1267).

Reviews and testimonials

Two 2025 opinions set the review and testimonial rules most firms now meet. New York allows a nominal gift for a Google review, which Google’s own policy still bans. New Jersey allows testimonials in ads with strict conditions. Our page on review incentives sets the bar, Google and FTC rules side by side.

NYSBA Opinion 1286 (September 29, 2025): gifts for Google reviews

A lawyer may ask a former client for a Google review and “may offer the former client a nominal gift for doing so, provided the lawyer does not draft the google review for the client or condition the gift on the content of the review” (NYSBA 1286). Confidentiality limits apply, especially in immigration matters.

NJ Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 49 (September 30, 2025): testimonials

Testimonials are allowed. The endorser is identified, at least by initials; an actor portraying a real client is labeled a dramatization; a past-results testimonial carries “Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.”; comparisons like “the best” are removed; and “lawyers cannot pay for endorsements or testimonials” (NJ CAA 49). It supersedes Opinions 15 and 33. New Jersey page.

Bidding on a competitor’s name

The 2024–2025 rulings split. New Jersey’s Supreme Court allows buying a rival’s name as a keyword with a set disclaimer. North Carolina bars buying a rival’s unique trade name. The full state split, with Texas, South Carolina and Florida and Google’s trademark policy, is on our competitor keyword page.

NJ Supreme Court, In re Opinion No. 735 (May 22, 2025)

“The practice of purchasing a competitor’s name as a keyword does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the rpcs. however, the court requires that attorneys employing this strategy include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on the landing page” (NJ Courts).

NJ ACPE Opinion 735 supplement (December 8, 2025): the disclaimer wording

The landing page must say: “You arrived at this page via a paid advertisement on [insert name of search engine provider] through paid keyword search results. This website and the legal business it describes are affiliated only with [insert name of purchasing attorney] and the attorneys referenced within this website.” It should, where possible, match the page’s main font size and color (NJ ACPE).

North Carolina 2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 4 (adopted January 19, 2024)

“The intentional selection of another lawyer’s unique firm trade name in a keyword advertisement campaign is prohibited, but that prohibition does not apply when the trade name is also a common search term” (NC State Bar). North Carolina page.

AI tools and chatbots

Of the five AI opinions we read from 2024 to 2026, only one deals with advertising directly. Florida 24-1 says a client-facing AI chatbot is subject to the ad rules and must say it’s AI. The others set general duties: understand the tool, check its output, protect client confidences, bill fairly. We found no opinion whose main subject is AI images, avatars or voices in ads.

Florida Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024)

“Generative ai chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must comply with restrictions on lawyer advertising and must include a disclaimer indicating that the chatbot is an ai program and not a lawyer or employee of the law firm” (Florida Bar 24-1). The opinion is advisory. Florida page.

Kentucky KBA E-457 (March 15, 2024)

A general AI opinion. It says: “we do not address kentucky’s advertising rules which may come into play if a lawyer intends to advertise the use of ai” (KBA E-457). Kentucky page.

The other AI opinions

• ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024): general duties for generative AI tools. Not re-read this session because the ABA site blocks automated reads.
• North Carolina 2024 FEO 1 (adopted November 1, 2024): “discusses a lawyer’s professional responsibility when using artificial intelligence in a law practice” (NC State Bar).
• Texas Opinion 705 (February 2025): asks “what ethical issues are raised” by a lawyer’s use of generative AI (Texas PEC 705).
• Alaska Opinion 2025-1 (adopted April 23, 2025): permitted, but the lawyer “should understand, to a reasonable degree, how the technology works, its limitations” (Alaska Bar).

For how AI-written pages fit the ad rules, see our AI-written legal content guide.

Websites, offices and social media

Three New York opinions answer everyday website questions. A virtual office can be the advertised address. Unadmitted graduates can be listed with a clear disclosure. And a lawyer has no ethics duty to chase down fake accounts that impersonate the firm.

NYSBA Opinion 1306 (posted October 15, 2026): unadmitted graduates on the website

“A law firm may list on its website law school graduates who are not yet admitted to practice law,” with a clear and conspicuous disclosure that they aren’t admitted (NYSBA 1306). Decided under the June 1, 2026 version of Rule 7.1.

NYSBA Opinion 1301 (posted September 3, 2026): a virtual office as the advertised address

A lawyer’s website, ads, letterhead and cards “may designate and hold out a virtual law office (‘vlo’) as the lawyer’s physical office address, even if the lawyer works primarily from home,” if mail reaches the lawyer and the lawyer can meet clients there on reasonable notice (NYSBA 1301).

NYSBA Opinion 1276 (October 23, 2024): fake social media accounts

“A lawyer who knows that an unknown or unidentified person is creating fake social media accounts in order to scam the public has no duty under the rules of professional conduct to take any action to combat the fake accounts” (NYSBA 1276). Reporting them to the platform is still good practice.

Older opinions still cited

These predate 2024 but still decide questions firms ask today:

• Texas Opinion 661 (July 2016): whether using a competing lawyer’s name as a search keyword violates the Texas rules (Texas PEC 661). Our library reads it as allowed if the ad isn’t misleading.
• South Carolina Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-01 on competitor names in search ads (SC Bar).
• D.C. Opinion 342 (published November 2007): flat per-client fees to internet referral services are allowed, a minority view (D.C. Bar).

How we build this tracker

• Scope: opinions and court rulings dated January 1, 2024 or later whose holding affects how a firm advertises, pays for clients, uses reviews or uses AI with the public. Pure conflicts, fees and trust-account opinions are left out.
• Sources: each bar’s or court’s own page or PDF. Summary sites can help us find an opinion, but they are never cited.
• Coverage: we read the opinion pages of the New York, New Jersey, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Kentucky and Alaska bars and courts. Other states are added as we check them; a state missing here may simply not have been checked yet.
• Updates: monthly. Entries are dated and never rewritten; changes get a dated note.

What this means for your firm

• Vet the vendor’s words, not just its price. “Vetted” and “top rated” are what got lawyers in trouble in New York.
• Keyword ads depend on your state. Allowed with a disclaimer in New Jersey, barred for unique trade names in North Carolina.
• AI that talks to the public is advertising. In Florida it must follow the ad rules and say it’s AI; elsewhere, the same rules apply to what it says.

We track these opinions for every client and build them into the ads and pages we run. We handle your state’s ad rules for you, on Google ads and on getting found on Google and in AI answers. See where your firm stands, or get a free review.

Last reviewed October 25, 2026 by the Probative editorial team. Marketing information, not legal advice. Summaries are ours; read the full opinion and confirm with your state bar and your own counsel before you rely on it.

Data. Every opinion here is also in the open ethics opinions dataset.