Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MOLEC

Must a law firm website carry the lawyer-choice statement required by Rule 4-7.2(f)?

Short answer The opinion says websites are advertising and Rule 4-7.2(f) applies, unless the website is limited to the basic information listed in Rule 4-7.2(g).
Bar
MOLEC
Issued
2006

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2006
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The lawyer asked whether a website and small Yellow Pages listing needed the choice-of-lawyer statement described in Rule 4-7.2(f).

The opinion treats websites as advertising under Rule 4-7.2(f). It says the statement is unnecessary for a website or print advertisement limited to the categories listed in Rule 4-7.2(g): firm and lawyer names, fields of law, bar admission details, and contact or office information.

In practice

The opinion applies the stated advertising rule to websites and identifies a content-limited exception for the information specified in Rule 4-7.2(g).

Common questions

Q: Does the opinion treat a website as advertising?

A: Yes. It expressly says websites are advertising.

Q: When is the choice statement unnecessary?

A: When the print ad or website contains only the information listed in Rule 4-7.2(g).

Q: What information falls within that list?

A: Firm and lawyer names, practice fields, admissions, and contact and office information are the categories identified.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 4-7.2(f) to websites and quotes the content limitation in Rule 4-7.2(g).

Citations and references

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 4-7.2

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION: Rule 4–7.2(f) states that advertisements or communications must conspicuously contain the statement: “The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.” Attorney has a website and a small listing in the Yellow Pages. Does the information referred to in Attorney’s website and Yellow Page ad need to contain the statement set forth in Rule 4–7.2(f)?ANSWER: Rule 4–7.2(f) applies to websites. Websites are considered advertising. It is not necessary to include the Rule 4–7.2(f) statement in a print ad or website that is limited to the information listed in Rule 4–7.2(g). Rule 4–7.2(g) exempts an advertisement from 4–7.2(f) if it is limited to some or all of the following:(1) the name of the law firm and the names of lawyers in the firm;(2) one or more fields of law in which the lawyer or law firm practices;(3) the date and place of admission to the bar of state and federal courts; and(4) the address, including e-mail and web site address, telephone number, and office hours.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2006. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace