Attorney advertising rules are an SEO problem

I read the four guides ranking for "law firm seo", I was hunting for the "state rules" part. That works out to a reading list of about 100,000 words. I followed every one of the 378 outbound links in those guides, checked that every cited source was still live.

This page covers the part that gets skipped. I'm not a lawyer and my coverage of four jurisdictions out of fifty-one is somewhat limited.

Why this lands on the SEO desk rather than the compliance desk

Because the highest-value SEO moves directly trigger these rules.

• Superlatives in the title tag, invited by a target like "best personal injury lawyer in Dallas"
• Certification claims, invited by a target like "board certified family law specialist"
• Results pages, the strongest trust content a firm owns and the most heavily regulated page on the site
• Reviews, which move the map pack and fall under Google's policy, the FTC's rule and your state bar at once

The compliance partner is unaware, because no one flags the title tag change.

The ABA baseline, and why it is not the book you are held to

Most states have their own ABA-modelled rules, which may be amended in key areas². The three that bear on SEO:

• Rule 7.1: no false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services
• Rule 7.2: advertising, what may be said about certification, and payments for recommendations, which is where lead generation sits
• Rule 7.3: solicitation of prospective clients

On 6 August 2018, the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 101. That deleted Model Rule 7.4 on specialisation and Model Rule 7.5 on firm names and moved part of their substance to Rules 7.1 and 7.2³.

Not every ABA change needs to lead directly to a state change. California still has a rule 7.4 and a rule 7.5 sitting in chapter 7 of its own Rules of Professional Conduct⁴.

Four jurisdictions, four answers to the same four questions

Texas: your home page is a filed document

If you don't have an exemption, complying with Texas Rule 7.04(a) requires you to file with the Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar of Texas, no later than ten days after the ad is disseminated. You need a copy that will show the ad as it appeared, and a completed application that has the fee attached to it⁵.

Rule 7.05(b) says that "information and links posted on a law firm website" are exempt, but there aren't any exemptions for "the contents of the website homepage". The comment to the rule says that compliance is first and foremost a whole-site job under Rules 7.01 and 7.02. The comment mentions the home page as the only material that may need filing, and that is the crux of the issue⁵.

Rule 7.02(a) adds that an advertisement "shall publish the name of a lawyer who is responsible for the content of the advertisement and identify the lawyer's primary practice location"⁵. Just listing a city with no named lawyer does not cut it. Template redesigns also periodically drop parts of the footer.

With two exceptions like the ones below, Rule 7.02(b) bars any statement that a lawyer has been certified or designated as possessing special competence⁵:

• A lawyer holding a Certificate of Special Competence from the Texas Board of Legal Specialization may state "Board Certified, area of specialization -- Texas Board of Legal Specialization"
• A member of an organisation whose name implies special competence may say so only if that organisation is accredited by the same board

The awkward thing about being board certified in Texas is that you can choose to use the prescribed wording or say nothing, which means you can forget the keyword-friendly rewrite.

New York: a label, a disclaimer, a font size, and a year of records

New York's Rule 7.1, codified at 22 NYCRR 1200.7.1⁶:

• (f) requires an advertisement to be labelled "Attorney Advertising", on the home page in the case of a website
• (e)(3) allows statements likely to create an expectation about results, comparisons with other lawyers, and characterisations of the quality of your services, only with the disclaimer "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome"
• (c)(1) requires paid endorsements to disclose the compensation
• (c)(3) requires disclosure where actors portray judges, lawyers or clients
• (e)(4) requires informed written consent for a client testimonial about a pending matter
• (k) requires any advertisement in a computer-accessed communication to be retained for at least a year

Then comes the font clause in rule 7.4.

You can state a private certification only by naming the organisation that is approved by the ABA. There also has to be a disclaimer present to say "This certification is not granted by any governmental authority". Your disclaimer must be clearly legible, and must be at least two font sizes larger than the largest text used to state the fact of certification⁷.

Florida: the Bar wrote your website checklist already

The Florida Bar has built a quick reference checklist for law firm websites. It gives websites the ability to skip filing for review, but they still have to comply with the substantive rules for advertising in 4-7.12 through 4-7.17 and 4-7.21. But you can submit and obtain a review of a single page for $150 in a voluntary filing under Rule 4-7.19(d). As the Bar does not accept a filing of an entire website, a site-wide review is not possible⁸.

On the surface, the checklist seems pretty easy, ask a few questions and count the yes answers. Every yes is a potential violation. The questions that bear on SEO work⁸:

• No name of at least one responsible lawyer or firm, or a name illegible or not reasonably prominent, under 4-7.12(a)(1) and (d)
• No disclosure of the city, town or county of at least one bona fide office, under 4-7.12(a)(2)
• Anything readable as a prediction or guarantee of success or specific results, under 4-7.13(b)(1)
• Past results that are not objectively verifiable, that omit material information, or that are "literally accurate, but could reasonably mislead a prospective client regarding a material fact", under 4-7.13(a)(2), (b)(2) and 4-7.14(a)(2)
• Comparisons of skill, experience, reputation or record that are not objectively verifiable, under 4-7.13(b)(3)
• Advertising for work in a practice area the lawyer does not currently practise in, under 4-7.13(b)(4)
• Testimonials the person is not qualified to give, that are not their actual experience, that were paid for, that are not representative of the firm's general client experience, that the lawyer drafted, or that carry no disclaimer that prospective clients may not get the same result, under 4-7.13(b)(8)
• A certification claim by a lawyer who is not board certified, a claim outside the certified area, a claim by the firm rather than the lawyer, or one omitting the certifying organisation and area, under 4-7.14(a)(4)
• A quoted fee with no disclosure of responsibility for costs and expenses, including "no fee unless we win", under 4-7.14(a)(5)
• A trade name that does not appear on all the firm's advertising, letterhead, business cards, office sign and pleadings, under 4-7.21(c)

California: the specialist claim the ABA stopped regulating

Under Rule 7.4(a), a certified specialist claim cannot happen unless you are currently certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization or another State Bar accredited entity. However, the certifying organisation must be clearly identified in the communication⁴.

But Rule 7.4(b) also allows you to say your practice specialises in, is limited to, or is concentrated in a field of law, subject to rule 7.1⁴.

Rule 7.5 notes that a firm name, trade name or professional designation must not violate rule 7.1. The comment to 7.1 points out that a communication truthfully reporting a lawyer's achievements may still mislead, and that what matters is whether it leads a reasonable person to expect the same result⁴.

Where this collides with the pages SEO actually edits

Then there is the published SEO advice.

The Webris advice is to ask family and friends (and get Google reviews that way), or to run staff contests (and reward them with gift cards and monthly bonuses)¹¹.

This is in direct conflict of Google's policy that prohibits reviews paid for directly or in kind. The policy makes it harder for firms to lean on staff, because it bans content based on a conflict of interest, including current or former employment, and pressuring staff to hit a review count⁹. The FTC's rules for the same conduct are contained in 16 CFR 465.4 and 465.5¹⁰.

You can see the compliant method on the local SEO page.

The pass I run before changing a word on a law firm site

1. Get the state's own rule text. I.e. start from the bar's site or the state code rather than from a marketing article. Go to the numbered rules (advertising and solicitation) and read the text in full. For me, in practice, an hour of reading per state is still one of the cheapest things a project can buy.
2. Four answers per state. Write down what specialisation claims you legally can make. Figure out what disclaimers your results claims need and start listing what must appear on each page. See if there are any filing or retention rules that are applicable.
3. Search the site for words, not pages. Specialist, expert, best, top, leading, guaranteed, record, winner, million. Often these are buried in title tags, hero headlines, schema fields, image alt text, footers and the Business Profile description.
4. Check the disclaimers survived the last redesign. The disclaimer is usually lost in the theme migration. There should always be an archived version you can compare against.
5. Check the Business Profile too. I'd treat the name, description and services as advertising just as much as the website.
6. Send anything uncertain to the firm's compliance person with the rule number attached. For me that is a much better approach as the compliance person gets the exact rule to check against.
7. Keep a dated copy of what shipped. This is very much a New York requirement for a year, but for a firm in any state, I'd do it anyway because of the expense of reconstructing the record later.