ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. The rule reaches advertisements, website content, social media profiles, professional directories, online reviews authored or solicited by the lawyer, and any other public communication about the lawyer's services.
Quick Answer
Two Rules of Professional Conduct govern attorney marketing:
- Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services) — prohibits false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services in any medium
- Rule 7.3 (Solicitation of Clients) — prohibits improper solicitation of prospective clients in real-time or in-person contexts
Firm-wide attribution operates through Rule 5.1 (supervising lawyers) and Rule 5.3 (non-lawyer staff). Where firm partners knew of or failed to prevent marketing misconduct by junior attorneys or non-lawyer staff (marketers, paralegals, intake personnel), the supervisory exposure is direct.
For bankruptcy practice specifically, 11 U.S.C. § 528 imposes federal-statutory advertising disclosure requirements on debt relief agencies, and 11 U.S.C. § 526 creates parallel enforcement authority for the United States Trustee, state attorneys general, and assisted persons.
The principle: The marketing dimension of a law practice is regulated as conduct, not protected speech. False claims, fake reviews, and improper solicitation are misconduct subject to discipline, civil enforcement, and (for debt relief agencies) federal-statutory penalties.
Rule 7.1 — Truthful Communications
The text of ABA Model Rule 7.1:
"A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading."
The rule applies to any communication about the lawyer's services - not just paid advertisements. The scope covers:
- Law firm websites and landing pages
- Attorney profile pages on professional directories (Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com, Super Lawyers)
- Social media profiles (LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X/Twitter, TikTok)
- Google Business Profile and Yelp listings
- Print advertising (newspapers, magazines, direct mail, billboards)
- Television, radio, and online video advertising
- Online reviews authored or solicited by the lawyer or by individuals connected to the lawyer
- Press releases, articles, and quoted statements
- Speaker bios, podcast descriptions, conference materials
- CV and resume content on professional networks
- Email signatures and templated client communications
State-Rule Equivalents
- Kansas: KRPC 7.1
- Missouri: MRPC 4-7.1
- Illinois: Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1
- Wisconsin: Supreme Court Rule 20:7.1
Common Rule 7.1 Violations
- Outcome guarantees and superlatives — "best bankruptcy lawyer", "guaranteed discharge", unverified claims of expertise or specialization where the jurisdiction has not certified the lawyer as a specialist
- Outdated or inaccurate credentials — claiming admission to bars where the lawyer is no longer in good standing, claiming education credentials inaccurately, claiming firm affiliations the lawyer no longer holds
- Misrepresented experience — overstated case counts, fabricated success rates, fictional client testimonials
- Misrepresented credentials of the firm — claiming awards, recognitions, or media coverage the firm does not have or that have been retracted; claiming honors that have a financial-payment requirement without disclosing it
- Fake or astroturfed reviews — reviews authored by the lawyer or by individuals connected to the lawyer (paralegals, family members, undisclosed promotional partners) without disclosure of the relationship
- Material omissions — failure to disclose a fact whose absence makes the communication misleading (e.g., describing a discipline outcome without disclosing the prior misconduct)
Online Reviews and Astroturfing
Online attorney reviews have specific Rule 7.1 implications when the review is authored by the lawyer, by a person at the lawyer's direction, or by a person with an undisclosed relationship to the lawyer.
The Disciplinary Analysis
A review by a genuine former client, posted spontaneously and in their own words, is not subject to Rule 7.1 because the lawyer has not made the communication. A review by the lawyer's spouse, paralegal, intake clerk, or marketing assistant - or by a customer who received compensation, discounts, or referral incentives in exchange for the review - is subject to Rule 7.1 because the lawyer (or a person at the lawyer's direction or under Rule 5.3 supervisory authority) has made the communication. False statements within those reviews are direct Rule 7.1 violations attributable to the lawyer.
Comment 2 to Model Rule 7.1
Comment 2 makes the standard explicit: a "truthful statement is misleading if presented in a way that creates a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer's services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation." Reviews that are technically true but presented in patterns calculated to mislead (volume bursts, geographic clustering, identical-author patterns) implicate this standard.
FTC Endorsement Guidelines Parallel
The Federal Trade Commission's Endorsement Guides require disclosure of material connections between an endorser and the company being endorsed. The FTC has taken enforcement action against companies (including law firms) that incentivize reviews without disclosure. While the FTC track is civil rather than disciplinary, it operates in parallel and the agency has jurisdiction over commercial speech by attorneys to the extent of consumer-protection violations.
Why platform filtering signals matter: Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor, and other review platforms maintain algorithmic filters that detect inauthentic, incentivized, or solicited reviews and route them to "filtered" or "not currently recommended" subsets. The presence of a substantial filtered-review population for a single attorney or firm is itself evidence of review manipulation, since the platform's filtering algorithm has independently flagged the conduct.
Rule 7.3 — Solicitation
The text of ABA Model Rule 7.3 (in relevant part):
(a) "Solicitation" or "solicit" denotes a communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm that is directed to a specific person the lawyer knows or reasonably should know needs legal services in a particular matter and that offers to provide, or reasonably can be understood as offering to provide, legal services for that matter.
(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by live person-to-person contact when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's or law firm's pecuniary gain, unless the contact is with a: (1) lawyer; (2) person who has a family, close personal, or prior business or professional relationship with the lawyer or law firm; or (3) person who routinely uses for business purposes the type of legal services offered by the lawyer.
(c) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (b), if: (1) the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or (2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.
The "live person-to-person contact" element is the core restriction. The 2018 ABA amendments narrowed the rule from prior versions that had restricted broader categories of contact, but the core prohibition on in-person, telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation remains.
State-Rule Equivalents
- Kansas: KRPC 7.3
- Missouri: MRPC 4-7.3
- Illinois: Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3
- Wisconsin: Supreme Court Rule 20:7.3
Common Rule 7.3 Violations
- Hospital and emergency-room solicitation — historical and most-recognized form; still occurs in some markets
- Real-time online forum participation — attorneys (or paralegals at the lawyer's direction) intervening in consumer threads on public forums, social media comments, or Q&A sites with offers to represent the poster
- Live chat widget solicitation — when widget-staff are non-lawyers operating without proper supervision and offering representation in real-time
- Direct phone or video contact with prospective clients whose contact information was obtained through a lead-generation source, without prior consent
- Non-lawyer staff making real-time contact on behalf of the lawyer (paralegal posting on consumer threads identifying as firm staff and offering representation) - this is a Rule 5.3 + Rule 7.3 dual violation
The Federal-Statutory Parallels
11 U.S.C. § 528 — Debt Relief Agency Advertising Requirements
11 U.S.C. § 528 requires debt relief agencies (which definition includes most consumer-bankruptcy attorneys and many small-business bankruptcy firms) to:
- Include a clear and conspicuous statement in any advertisement of bankruptcy assistance that the services or benefits described are with respect to bankruptcy under title 11
- Disclose that "We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code" (or substantially similar language) in advertisements
- Maintain accurate and complete advertising materials
Failure to comply with § 528 is itself enforceable through § 526(c) civil enforcement.
11 U.S.C. § 526 — Restrictions on Debt Relief Agencies
11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(3) prohibits debt relief agencies from "misrepresent[ing] to any assisted person or prospective assisted person, directly or indirectly, affirmatively or by material omission, with respect to — (A) the services that such agency will provide to such person; or (B) the benefits and risks that may result if such person becomes a debtor in a case under this title."
Section 526(c) provides civil enforcement:
- By the assisted person: recovery of fees plus actual damages plus attorneys' fees (§ 526(c)(2))
- By state attorneys general: parens patriae actions for residents (§ 526(c)(3))
- By the bankruptcy court on motion or sua sponte: injunctive relief and civil penalties (§ 526(c)(5))
FTC Section 5
The Federal Trade Commission has authority under 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act § 5) over "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." Attorney advertising is "commercial speech" within FTC jurisdiction to the extent of deceptive practices. While the FTC has historically deferred to state bars on attorney-specific matters, the agency retains independent authority and has taken action against firms (including legal-services firms) for endorsement-guideline violations and deceptive marketing.
State Consumer-Protection Statutes
Every state has a consumer-protection statute (often modeled on the FTC Act § 5) that prohibits deceptive trade practices. State attorneys general have enforcement authority under these statutes, and many of them have private rights of action. False attorney advertising, fake reviews, and improper solicitation can all constitute deceptive trade practices subject to state-consumer-protection enforcement.
Patterns That Implicate Rules 7.1 and 7.3
Pattern: Firm-Wide Review Manipulation
Multiple attorneys at the same firm exhibit similar review-platform patterns - identical-day review clusters, geographic clustering of reviewers, repeated reviewers across firm attorneys, or substantial filtered-review populations. Single-attorney anomalies could be coincidence; firm-wide patterns implicate Rule 5.1 for the partners and Rule 5.3 for the firm's marketing staff.
Pattern: Insider Review Clusters
Reviews authored by individuals whose relationship to the firm is not disclosed - family members of attorneys, paralegals or other staff, intake clerks, marketing-consultant employees. Discovery of an insider review cluster often follows from name-pattern analysis (uncommon surnames matching firm employees), geographic concentration (reviewers in cities where firm employees live), or timing patterns (reviews posted in batches within hours of each other).
Pattern: Public-Thread Solicitation
Attorneys or paralegals intervening in public consumer threads (Reddit, Facebook groups, Nextdoor, neighborhood forums) with offers to provide legal services. The interventions typically follow a template: identify the firm, list practice areas, provide contact information. Even when characterized as "informational," the offer of services in a real-time consumer-help context can constitute Rule 7.3 solicitation.
Pattern: Outdated or Misleading Credentials
Attorney profiles, firm websites, or directory listings asserting credentials, awards, recognitions, or media coverage that are outdated, fabricated, or characterized misleadingly. The duty to maintain accurate marketing materials under Rule 7.1 is continuing; an unaddressed inaccurate claim becomes a continuing violation.
Pattern: Failure to Include § 528 DRA Disclosure
A debt-relief-agency firm advertising bankruptcy services without including the required § 528 disclosure ("We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code"). This is a discrete federal-statutory violation enforceable through § 526(c).
What to Do If You Suspect Marketing Misconduct
Track 1: Document the Marketing
Save dated screenshots of the offending content - reviews, ads, profile pages, social media posts. For online content, the documentation should include the URL, the date and time of capture, and the visible context (surrounding posts, prior versions accessible via the Wayback Machine if relevant). Verify the underlying claims independently where possible.
Track 2: Platform Reporting
Many review platforms have Terms-of-Service violations for fake or incentivized reviews. Reporting to the platform (Yelp's "Report this review" function, Google's review removal process) is a parallel, no-cost track that can result in review removal or platform action against the lawyer or firm. Document the platform reports as part of the disciplinary record.
Track 3: State Bar Disciplinary Complaint
File with the relevant state-bar disciplinary authority. Rules 7.1 and 7.3 violations are well within bar disciplinary jurisdiction. Use our bar complaint generator to assemble the complaint with the documentary record.
Track 4: State Attorney General / Consumer Protection
Where the conduct constitutes a deceptive trade practice under state consumer-protection law, file with the state AG's consumer-protection division. State AGs have enforcement authority including injunctive relief, civil penalties, and (in some states) restitution.
Track 5: Federal § 526 / § 528 (debt relief agencies only)
If the firm holds itself out as a debt relief agency, parallel federal-statutory complaints are available:
- United States Trustee: justice.gov/ust — § 526(c)(5) enforcement authority
- State Attorney General: § 526(c)(3) parens patriae authority
- Bankruptcy court motion: § 526(c)(5) injunctive and civil-penalty relief
Track 6: FTC Complaint
The Federal Trade Commission accepts consumer complaints at reportfraud.ftc.gov. While the FTC does not typically pursue individual attorney advertising complaints, the consumer-report system feeds into the agency's investigative pipeline, and patterns of complaints can prompt enforcement action.
Filing Channels by State
- Kansas: Office of the Disciplinary Administrator · Kansas AG Consumer Protection
- Missouri: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel · Missouri AG Consumer Protection
- Illinois: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission · Illinois AG Consumer Protection
- Wisconsin: Office of Lawyer Regulation · Wisconsin DATCP Consumer Protection
- FTC: reportfraud.ftc.gov
- U.S. Trustee: justice.gov/ust
Related Reading
About This Guide
This page is published by the Open Bankruptcy Project (EIN 41-5159631), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It is general legal information about Rules 7.1 and 7.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the federal-statutory parallels under 11 U.S.C. §§ 526 and 528, and the FTC consumer-protection framework. It is not legal advice. All citations link to official sources.