The homepage of EPRA Legal — the Law Practice of Ernestas Pravilionis — opens with a headline: “Big City Services at Upstate Prices – Full-Service Legal Solutions for Businesses and Individuals.” Below the headline, a paragraph elaborates that the firm “aims to break down barriers to legal services access throughout New York State by being the most accessible, tech-enabled, and trusted remote-first law firm.”
As we noted when we first reported on EPRA Legal, Ernestas Pravilionis was admitted to the New York bar in 2024 — approximately two years ago. He is the firm’s only attorney. His background before New York bar admission consists primarily of work in the aviation industry, a traineeship at the European Commission, and an associate general counsel role at a Lithuanian research institution. He is not admitted in any other United States jurisdiction.
Our first investigation focused on three areas: the virtual offices that may violate New York Judiciary Law §470, the competence questions raised by practicing across twelve distinct areas of law after two years of admission, and the disclosure buried at the bottom of his About page confirming that the website uses AI-generated images to depict him. This investigation focuses on a fourth area: the website’s advertising claims, and whether they comply with Rule 7.1 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 7.1 is not a minor technicality. It is the foundational rule governing how attorneys are permitted to communicate about their services to the public. Its violation is taken seriously by the New York bar discipline system, and the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics has issued multiple formal opinions addressing exactly the type of claims that appear on the EPRA Legal website. Those opinions are publicly available and unambiguous.
What follows is a detailed analysis of each advertising claim on the EPRA Legal website that raises Rule 7.1 concerns, the rule and its official commentary, the binding and persuasive authority that interprets it, and what those sources say about the specific language Pravilionis has chosen to describe his firm.
Understanding Rule 7.1: The Full Framework
New York Rule 7.1(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not use or disseminate an advertisement that “contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading.” The rule covers every communication whose primary purpose is the retention of the lawyer or law firm, including websites. A law firm website is, in its entirety, an advertisement subject to Rule 7.1.
The rule’s reach extends beyond outright falsehoods. Comment [3] to Rule 7.1 provides that “a truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication not materially misleading… [or if there is] a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, or about the results a lawyer can achieve, for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.”
This is the core insight that makes Rule 7.1 analysis more demanding than it might first appear. The question is not merely whether a claim is technically false. The question is whether a reasonable prospective client, reading the claim, would form a conclusion about the quality, scope, or trustworthiness of the firm’s services for which there is no adequate factual basis. A technically true sentence can still violate Rule 7.1 if its practical effect is to mislead.
Comment [12] to Rule 7.1 addresses comparative claims directly. It states that “descriptions of characteristics of a lawyer or law firm that compare its services with other firms and cannot be factually supported could mislead potential clients, and therefore it could be improper for a lawyer to advertise that he or she is the ‘Best.’”
Rule 7.1(d) and (e), read together, permit statements that compare the lawyer’s services with those of other lawyers or describe the quality of a lawyer’s services, but only if the statements “can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated” and are accompanied by the disclaimer that “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.”
That factual-support requirement is not aspirational. It means the lawyer must, at the moment of publication, possess evidence that would substantiate the claim. A lawyer who cannot produce that evidence is advertising in violation of the rule, regardless of whether the claim is phrased as a statement or as an aspiration.
The Historical Foundation: Why Attorney Advertising Is Regulated at All
Attorney advertising was functionally banned in the United States for most of the twentieth century. The American Bar Association’s Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in 1908, treated any form of self-promotion as undignified and improper. State bar associations enforced blanket prohibitions with the threat of disciplinary action. The legal profession maintained these rules for decades, presenting them as protections of professional dignity and public trust.
The Supreme Court changed everything in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). John Bates and Van O’Steen, two Arizona attorneys running a legal clinic, placed a newspaper advertisement listing the prices they charged for routine legal services. The Arizona State Bar sought to discipline them. The Supreme Court held that lawyer advertising is commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, and that blanket bans on truthful advertising about routine legal services could not stand.
But Bates was careful. The Court explicitly stated that false, deceptive, or misleading attorney advertising is not protected commercial speech and may be prohibited. The right to advertise truthfully carries no corresponding right to mislead. In the decades since Bates, states have enacted detailed attorney advertising rules that sit precisely in the space the Court left open: they cannot ban truthful advertising, but they can and do prohibit advertising that creates false impressions, overstates qualifications, or makes comparative claims that cannot be substantiated.
New York’s Rule 7.1, in its current form, reflects nearly fifty years of post-Bates experience with where attorney advertising goes wrong. The rule’s provisions, particularly Comment [12]’s focus on unverifiable comparative claims, represent the profession’s hard-won understanding that the most dangerous form of misleading attorney advertising is not the outright lie but the plausible-sounding claim that a prospective client has no way to evaluate.
Claim One: “Big City Services at Upstate Prices”
The headline of the EPRA Legal homepage makes a direct comparative claim: the firm offers “Big City Services at Upstate Prices.” This is not aspirational language. There is no “aims to” qualifier. The headline presents it as a statement of present fact: EPRA Legal delivers services that are equivalent in quality to big city law firms, at lower prices typical of upstate New York.
Under Rule 7.1, Comment [12], this claim raises an immediate question: can it be factually supported? What, precisely, does it mean for a two-year solo attorney’s services to be equivalent to those of “big city” firms?
Big city law firms in New York — whether that phrase conjures Manhattan’s Am Law 100 firms or simply the established multi-attorney practices found in New York City’s outer boroughs — bring resources, staffing, specialized expertise, and institutional experience that take years or decades to accumulate. A claim that a solo attorney admitted two years ago delivers equivalent services is not merely bold; it is, on its face, the kind of comparison that “cannot be factually supported” under Comment [12].
The NYSBA Committee on Professional Ethics addressed precisely this category of claim in Ethics Opinion 1005, issued April 2, 2014. The Committee was asked whether a lawyer could use the phrase “unsurpassed litigation skills” on a website. The Committee ruled that the phrase violates Rule 7.1 because it “compares the skills of the lawyer with others without factual support, similar to listing a lawyer as the ‘Best’ in the example provided in Comment [12] to Rule 7.1.” The Committee further noted that “merely posting the disclaimer that ‘Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome’ will not cure the ethical infirmity of the proposed advertising.”
The “Big City Services” headline on the EPRA Legal website fits precisely within the category the Committee addressed. It compares EPRA Legal’s services favorably to the services of other lawyers — specifically, the lawyers at established New York firms operating in major markets. It invites a prospective client to conclude that hiring EPRA Legal produces outcomes comparable to hiring a more established firm, at a lower price. For that conclusion to be permissible under Rule 7.1, it must be factually supportable. Pravilionis would need evidence — outcome data, peer comparisons, client outcome tracking — demonstrating that his services are genuinely comparable to those of larger or more established firms. No such evidence is presented anywhere on the website.
The claim is particularly pointed given what we know about Pravilionis’s background. Before his bar admission, he had never practiced U.S. law. His American legal experience began when he opened EPRA Legal. The suggestion that this practice delivers “big city services” is, at best, a marketing aspiration. Under Rule 7.1, it may be something more: an advertisement that creates, without factual foundation, the impression that a newly admitted solo practitioner delivers services comparable to far more experienced attorneys and larger practices.
Claim Two: “Full-Service Legal Solutions”
The same headline describes EPRA Legal as offering “Full-Service Legal Solutions for Businesses and Individuals.” The word “full-service” carries specific meaning to a prospective client. It implies that the firm can handle any legal matter a business or individual might face — that clients will not be turned away for lack of expertise, that the firm covers the waterfront of legal needs.
EPRA Legal lists six practice areas on its homepage: General Litigation, Business and Corporate Law, Consumer Law, Immigration Law, Intellectual Property Law, and Technology and Internet Law. The firm’s sole attorney is a two-year New York practitioner with no prior U.S. legal experience. These facts sit in direct tension with the “full-service” claim.
Rule 7.1’s prohibition on misleading advertising applies to claims about the scope of services just as it applies to claims about their quality. A prospective client who reads “full-service legal solutions” and concludes that the firm can handle their complex corporate acquisition, their criminal defense matter, their estate plan, or their employment discrimination case is forming exactly the kind of conclusion for which, under Comment [3] to Rule 7.1, there must be a “reasonable factual foundation.”
No solo practitioner — regardless of years of experience — is capable of genuinely full-service legal representation across the range of matters that businesses and individuals encounter. The American legal system is too specialized, too procedurally complex, and too jurisdiction-specific for any one attorney to cover all of it competently. A two-year attorney is even less positioned to make this claim credibly.
More to the point, “full-service” is an advertising characterization of the quality and breadth of the firm’s services. Under Rule 7.1(d) and (e), such characterizations must be factually supported as of the date of dissemination. What factual evidence would support the claim that a sole practitioner with two years of experience offers full-service legal solutions? The answer, examined honestly, is none.
Claim Three: The Convergence of “Remote-First” and Judiciary Law §470
As we documented in our first investigation, Ernestas Pravilionis operates EPRA Legal as a self-described “remote-first law firm” while listing three New York addresses — in New York City, Poughkeepsie, and Albany — that appear to be virtual mailbox services rather than actual law offices. New York Judiciary Law §470 requires attorneys admitted in New York to maintain a physical office in the state for the transaction of law business.
From a Rule 7.1 perspective, the advertising problem here is distinct from the §470 problem, but they are related. An attorney who markets himself as “remote-first” is, to a prospective client, communicating something about how his services will be delivered. That communication is an advertisement. If the remote-first model is being used in combination with nominal addresses that misrepresent the firm’s actual physical footprint, the advertisement contributes to a misleading impression about how and where the firm operates.
A prospective client in Poughkeepsie who sees a listed address at 37 Academy St. in Poughkeepsie on the EPRA Legal About page may reasonably believe they are hiring a local attorney with a local office. If that address is a virtual mailbox, the client has been misled about a material fact: where their lawyer actually is and how accessible that lawyer actually is. The word “accessible” appears in the firm’s advertising. The listed address is, in effect, part of the advertisement. If the address conveys physical presence that does not exist, that component of the advertisement is false or misleading.
The AI Photo Question: Rule 7.1 and the Duty of Accurate Self-Representation
The About page of the EPRA Legal website contains a single sentence, positioned after the attorney’s biography: “The webpage employs AI-generated images to depict the lawyer, members of the law firm, or fictional events or scenes.”
This disclosure is notable for what it contains and for where it appears. It appears at the end of the page, after the bio, after the experience section, after the contact information — a location that few prospective clients reading the About page will reach before forming their initial impression of the attorney’s appearance and identity.
Rule 7.1’s prohibition on misleading advertising encompasses the visual presentation of attorney advertising, not just its text. When an attorney’s website presents a photograph that a prospective client reasonably believes is a photograph of the attorney, that image functions as a representation. A prospective client choosing an attorney considers, among other things, who will actually be appearing on their behalf — in court, in negotiations, in client meetings. The visual identity of the attorney is part of the representation.
The question is not whether the AI-generated image constitutes a lie in the strict sense. The question — as always under Rule 7.1 — is whether it creates a false or misleading impression. An AI-generated headshot that presents a polished, professional-looking attorney does create an impression. The subsequent disclosure, buried at the bottom of the page, may not be sufficient to cure the impression already formed by the image at the top of the page.
New York Rule 7.1(f) requires that attorney advertisements contain the words “Attorney Advertising” on the first page or, in the case of a website, on the home page. The footer of the EPRA Legal website includes this disclosure. But the AI photo issue is different in kind. Rule 7.1(f) addresses identification of advertising as advertising. The AI photo issue addresses whether the advertising itself creates a false or misleading impression — a Rule 7.1(a)(1) question. The “Attorney Advertising” footer does not speak to that question.
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1005: The Benchmark Case
The most directly applicable authority on the specific claims in the EPRA Legal website is NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1005, issued by the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics on April 2, 2014. The opinion addressed two questions: whether an attorney could use the phrase “I KNOW HOW TO WIN FOR YOU” in advertising, and whether a law firm could use the phrase “unsurpassed litigation skills” on its website.
The Committee ruled that both phrases violate Rule 7.1. Regarding “unsurpassed litigation skills,” the Committee held that the phrase “compares the skills of the lawyer with others without factual support, similar to listing a lawyer as the ‘Best’ in the example provided in Comment [12] to Rule 7.1.” The Committee was unequivocal: adding a disclaimer will not save an advertisement that is structurally misleading. The disclaimer “will not cure the ethical infirmity of the proposed advertising.”
The analysis in Opinion 1005 maps directly onto the “Big City Services” and “Full-Service” claims on the EPRA Legal homepage. “Big City Services” compares EPRA Legal’s services with those of larger, more established firms without factual support. “Full-Service Legal Solutions” characterizes the quality and scope of the firm’s services in a way that, under Rule 7.1(d) and (e), must be factually supportable. Neither claim is accompanied by any factual basis, any supporting data, or any qualifying statement that would allow a prospective client to assess the comparison for themselves.
The Committee also invoked NYSBA Ethics Opinion 877, decided in 2011, which established that a statement describing the “quality” of a lawyer’s work must be “factually supported” at the time it is disseminated. The “Full-Service” claim is a quality claim in addition to a scope claim: it tells prospective clients that the quality of services across every legal area they might need is sufficient to call the firm full-service. That claim, under Opinion 877 and Rule 7.1(d), requires factual support that the website does not provide.
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1007: Even Legitimate Rankings Require Scrutiny
The same week as Opinion 1005, the NYSBA Committee issued Ethics Opinion 1007 (April 3, 2014), addressing whether a lawyer could advertise inclusion in the “Best Lawyers” publication. The Committee’s ruling is illuminating in how demanding it is about comparative claims, even when those claims are based on external recognition.
The Committee held that a lawyer may advertise inclusion in “Best Lawyers” only if the attorney’s own assessment of the publication’s methodology confirms that it is “unbiased, nondiscriminatory and based on some defensible method.” The opinion put the burden on the lawyer to investigate and verify the underlying basis for the comparative claim before using it in advertising. A lawyer cannot simply reproduce a ranking or title without understanding and being prepared to defend the methodology that produced it.
The implication for self-generated comparative claims like “Big City Services” is even more demanding. When a recognized external organization produces a ranking, there is at least some methodology — even an imperfect one — to evaluate. When an attorney generates the comparative claim himself, there is no external methodology at all. The attorney is, in effect, self-awarding a ranking. Under the logic of Opinion 1007, that is the hardest possible case to justify under Rule 7.1: a comparative claim with no external validation and no methodology that the advertiser can point to.
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 877: What a New York Law Firm Website Can and Cannot Say
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 877, issued September 12, 2011, addressed the question of what information a New York attorney may post on a law firm website. The opinion is significant not only for what it permits, but for the conditions it imposes on quality claims — conditions that the EPRA Legal website does not appear to satisfy.
The Committee confirmed that a website may quote favorable comments about the lawyer’s work from ratings publications, but only subject to strict conditions. Where the quoted statements “describe or characterize the ‘quality’ of the lawyer’s work,” Rule 7.1(d)(4) and (e)(2)-(3) require that those statements “can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated,” and must be accompanied by the disclaimer that “prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.” The key phrase is “factually supported.” A quality characterization that cannot be substantiated at the moment it is published is a Rule 7.1 violation regardless of how it is framed.
Opinion 877 also drew a clear line on accurate biographical information. The Committee confirmed that lawyers may list former positions accurately, but emphasized that biographical data “would be prohibited if it were false, deceptive or misleading.” Applied to EPRA Legal, this principle has direct relevance: an About page that presents a photograph that is not actually a photograph of the attorney, in connection with biographical claims about the attorney’s background and experience, may create a misleading composite impression even if each individual biographical fact is technically accurate.
The NYSBA itself has been explicit in published guidance about what quality claims New York attorneys may not make. In its official publication “Networking, Marketing, and Ethics: What You Need to Know,” the NYSBA states plainly: “Accordingly, a lawyer may not advertise that the lawyer is ‘Best,’ ‘Most Experienced,’ or ‘Hardest Working.’” This guidance is not a novel interpretation — it is the NYSBA’s own summary of what Rule 7.1 requires, published for practicing New York attorneys.
One reason published New York Appellate Division opinions specifically on attorney advertising violations are relatively rare is structural: in New York, advertising complaints are typically resolved by the grievance committees at the departmental level — through informal letters directing the attorney to modify the advertising, or through private admonition — without ever reaching the Appellate Division for a published opinion. The absence of prominent published decisions on advertising does not mean the rule is not enforced. It means enforcement happens quietly, at the committee level, and attorneys who receive a letter telling them to take down a noncompliant website rarely publicize the fact. The NYSBA ethics opinions and published guidance — Opinions 877, 1005, and 1007 — represent the articulation of the rule for practicing attorneys. They are the enforcement framework’s foundation.
The Anatomy of a Rule 7.1 Violation: Why These Claims Matter
Attorney advertising rules are not bureaucratic box-checking. They exist because the stakes in attorney selection are high, the information asymmetry between attorney and prospective client is severe, and the consequences of choosing the wrong attorney are often devastating and irreversible. A client who hires a lawyer based on false claims about the quality or scope of that lawyer’s services is not just misled in the abstract — they may lose a case, miss a deadline, receive incompetent immigration advice, or lose their business to a poorly drafted contract.
Rule 7.1 is the profession’s attempt to address this asymmetry by requiring that the information attorneys provide to prospective clients be honest and verifiable. A two-year solo attorney who advertises “Big City Services” and “Full-Service Legal Solutions” is not merely engaging in puffery. He is inviting prospective clients — particularly the immigrants, small business owners, and individuals with consumer protection problems that EPRA Legal targets — to make consequential decisions about legal representation based on claims that, on their face, cannot be factually supported.
The clients most likely to be harmed by these claims are also the clients least equipped to evaluate them. A sophisticated corporate client with in-house counsel can investigate a law firm’s track record, review attorney profiles, and conduct due diligence before engagement. An immigrant navigating an asylum claim or a first-generation small business owner who found EPRA Legal through a web search cannot. For those clients, the website’s claims about the quality and scope of services may be all the information they have. Rule 7.1 exists, in significant part, to protect exactly those clients.
What “Factual Support” Would Actually Require
It is worth being concrete about what it would take for the EPRA Legal advertising claims to comply with Rule 7.1. Under Rule 7.1(d) and (e), comparative or quality claims require factual support as of the date of dissemination. What factual support is available?
For “Big City Services at Upstate Prices,” the attorney would need to demonstrate — through outcome data, client surveys, peer evaluations, or some other objective metric — that his services produce results comparable to those of more established or larger firms in major markets. Given two years of practice and no prior U.S. legal experience, the evidentiary basis for such a claim would be thin to nonexistent.
For “Full-Service Legal Solutions,” the attorney would need to demonstrate competence across the full range of legal matters that businesses and individuals encounter. A solo practitioner is, by definition, constrained by the limits of one person’s knowledge, time, and expertise. The claim of full-service coverage is not merely aspirational — it is structurally impossible for any solo practitioner to satisfy in the literal sense, and potentially misleading to the degree that clients interpret it as a genuine representation of breadth.
For the “trusted” characterization embedded in the aspirational paragraph: trust, by definition, is a function of track record and relationship. A two-year attorney without documented client outcomes, independent reviews, or verifiable peer recognition cannot claim to be “trusted” in a comparative sense — trusted compared to whom, by whom, based on what evidence? This qualifier, though framed aspirationally, still shapes the impression prospective clients form. Under Comment [3]’s test, if there is a “substantial likelihood” that a reasonable person will form a specific conclusion — in this case, that EPRA Legal is a trusted and reliable firm with a demonstrated track record — for which there is no reasonable factual foundation, the statement is misleading.
The Cumulative Picture
Viewed individually, any one of the advertising claims on the EPRA Legal website might be defended as harmless marketing enthusiasm. Viewed together, they create a cumulative picture that is harder to dismiss.
A prospective client who visits epralegal.com encounters: a headline claiming big city quality at lower prices; a description of full-service capabilities; a promise of accessibility, technological sophistication, and trustworthiness; three listed offices suggesting a multi-location practice; a professional photograph that is not a real photograph of the attorney; and six practice areas that include some of the most specialized and high-stakes areas of law a client might need help navigating.
Each of these elements is an advertisement. Each is subject to Rule 7.1. And each, in the context of a two-year solo practitioner with no prior U.S. legal experience and no verified track record, contributes to an overall impression that the rule exists to prevent: the impression that a prospective client is evaluating an established, experienced, well-resourced firm when they are not.
The Practical Consequence: A Vulnerable Client Base
EPRA Legal’s own website identifies its target market. The firm “serves clients statewide with a focus on small and medium size businesses & individuals based in Catskills-Hudson Valley Region and NYC.” The practice areas listed — immigration law, consumer law, general litigation — are areas where clients are often navigating unfamiliar legal terrain, where the consequences of inadequate representation are severe, and where the gap between expectation and reality can be catastrophic.
An immigrant who hires EPRA Legal based on the “full-service” and “big city services” claims, and whose case is mishandled due to inexperience, faces consequences that can include deportation, separation from family, and permanent bars to immigration benefits. A small business owner whose contract was poorly drafted by an attorney who claimed “full-service” business law capabilities may face litigation, financial loss, or business failure. These are not abstract harms. They are the real consequences of attorney selection decisions made on the basis of misleading information.
Rule 7.1 cannot prevent attorneys from taking cases beyond their experience. Rule 1.1 (competence) is the rule that governs that question, and we addressed it in our first investigation. But Rule 7.1 can prevent attorneys from soliciting those cases by making advertising claims that a prospective client — particularly a vulnerable one with limited ability to conduct independent due diligence — cannot evaluate or verify. That is precisely the function the rule serves, and precisely the function that the EPRA Legal website’s advertising claims appear to undermine.
What This Means for the New York Grievance System
Attorney advertising complaints in New York are handled by the Appellate Division’s Attorney Grievance Committees. For Manhattan attorneys and those in the First Judicial Department, the relevant body is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the First Judicial Department. Given that EPRA Legal lists a Manhattan address among its offices, Pravilionis likely falls under First Department jurisdiction, though the presence of a Poughkeepsie address could also implicate Second Department jurisdiction for complaints arising from that representation.
The grievance committees are empowered to investigate attorney advertising and to initiate proceedings based on complaints from the public or on their own review of public materials. Attorney websites are public materials. The claims we have identified in this investigation are drawn directly from the publicly available EPRA Legal website, as it existed on May 16, 2026.
Discipline for Rule 7.1 advertising violations in New York ranges from private or public admonition on the lower end, through censure, to suspension for repeated or egregious violations. First-time violations involving advertising language are more commonly addressed through informal letters directing the attorney to modify the advertising, or through admonition. But where the advertising is part of a pattern of conduct — as it may be here, given the virtual office questions and the AI photo issues documented in our earlier reporting — the cumulative picture presented to a grievance committee may warrant more serious consideration.
Any person who has retained EPRA Legal based on the representations on the firm’s website, and who has concerns about the accuracy of those representations, has the right to file a complaint with the relevant grievance committee. Instructions for filing are available on the New York Courts website and at the NYSBA’s public resources page. The Ethics Reporter encourages anyone with relevant information to come forward.
Conclusion: The Rule Exists for a Reason
New York Rule 7.1 is not a rule about politeness or professional aesthetics. It is a rule about honesty. It requires that attorneys, when they seek to attract clients, do so by telling the truth about what they offer — or at minimum, by refraining from making claims they cannot substantiate. That requirement is not onerous for an attorney with a real track record, genuine experience, and verifiable client outcomes. It is, however, a constraint on an attorney who would prefer to project an image of establishment, capability, and trustworthiness that the underlying facts do not yet support.
The EPRA Legal website presents Ernestas Pravilionis as the leader of an accessible, full-service, big city-quality law firm serving clients across New York State. The underlying facts — two years of admission, no prior U.S. legal practice, a single attorney, no documented track record, and offices that appear to be virtual mailboxes — paint a different picture. Rule 7.1 is designed precisely for the gap between those two pictures.
The question of whether that gap constitutes a disciplinable violation is one for the New York Attorney Grievance Committee to answer. The evidence is public. The rule is clear. And the prospective clients who may be making consequential legal decisions based on the claims on that website deserve to know that the rule exists, that it applies to what they are reading, and that they have the right to report what they see.
This investigation is part of The Ethics Reporter’s ongoing coverage of EPRA Legal and its sole attorney, Ernestas Pravilionis. Our first investigation examined virtual office violations, competence questions, and AI-generated photographs. Tips and documents can be submitted confidentially at theethicsreporter.com/tip.
The Ethics Reporter is an independent publication supported entirely by reader donations. We have no advertisers, no corporate backers, and no institutional funding. Support our work.