A lawyer shall not make or sponsor 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.
Rule 7.1 governs attorney advertising and all communications about the attorney's services. Violations include: using AI-generated photographs to misrepresent the attorney's appearance; claiming experience, certifications, or case results that are false or misleading; using testimonials without required disclaimers; advertising specialties in states where such claims require certification; and creating the overall false impression of a more established or successful practice than actually exists. In the digital era, Rule 7.1 violations have proliferated through misleading websites, fake reviews on legal directories, and manufactured 'best lawyer' designations. The Ethics Reporter's investigation of Ernestas Pravilionis identified AI-generated attorney photos as a potential Rule 7.1 violation.
Rule 7.1 violations typically result in discipline commensurate with the egregiousness of the misrepresentation and the harm caused. False advertising that deceives vulnerable clients into retaining an unqualified attorney is treated more seriously. States have taken enforcement action against misleading websites, false credential claims, and deceptive advertising campaigns. Rule 7.1 violations are increasingly common as attorney digital marketing expands into practices that blur the line between promotion and misrepresentation.
If you believe your attorney violated Rule 7.1 — Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services — you may have grounds for a bar complaint. Our guide explains the process.
The Ethics Reporter investigates attorney misconduct and judicial corruption. Help us keep this work free and independent.
Donate to Support Our Work