AI content and state bar advertising rules

The general principle

ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits a false or misleading communication about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, and most states adopt it in some form. A communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation, omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading, or creates an unjustified expectation.

Nothing in that rule exempts content because its intended reader is a machine. If an AI system quotes a firm's page back to a prospective client, the firm made that communication.

This page is a description of how we work, not legal advice, and your state's rules and ethics opinions govern. Where our review and your bar's guidance differ, your bar's guidance controls.

Five rules that come up most

• Specialization and expertise. Many states restrict the words specialist, specialize, expert, and expertise unless the lawyer holds a recognized certification. AEO content is tempted toward these words because they sound like what an engine wants. We do not use them, and we flag any existing page that does.
• Case results. Publishing settlements and verdicts as marketing typically requires disclaimers and must not imply a similar outcome. Several states restrict it further. We build authority from procedure, credentials, and jurisdiction knowledge instead, which carries no such burden and which engines weight more heavily anyway.
• Comparisons. Claims that a firm is the best, the top, or better than others are unsubstantiated comparisons in most states unless they can be factually proven. An engine may name a firm as among the best. The firm's own page should not.
• Testimonials and reviews. Where permitted, client statements usually require a disclaimer that results vary. Fabricated or incentivized reviews violate both bar rules and every major platform's policies, and answer engines are increasingly able to detect them.
• Creating an attorney-client relationship. Answer-first content about procedure must stay general. It explains how a process works in a jurisdiction. It does not apply that to a reader's facts or tell a reader what to do in their case.

Where AEO and the rules point the same way

Most of what the rules prohibit is also what answer engines ignore. Engines do not quote superlatives, they discount unverifiable claims, and they treat fabricated signals as a reason to distrust a source. Plain, specific, accurate content about how the law works in a named jurisdiction is simultaneously the most compliant and the most quotable thing a firm can publish.

What our review covers

Before any page ships, it is checked for the five issues above, for jurisdiction accuracy, and for any statement that could create an unjustified expectation. Pages touching policy-sensitive areas are dated and scheduled for re-review. The firm sees everything before it publishes and can require changes.

This review is a marketing compliance check performed by our team. It is not a legal opinion and does not replace review by the firm or its ethics counsel.