Can a lawyer use actors to dramatize real client testimonials, or use made-up clients and testimonials, in radio or TV ads?

Plain-English summary

The committee answered three questions about radio and television advertising. Building on N.Y. State 614 (1990), which declined to bar client endorsements outright but held that endorsements describing prior results are improper without disclaimers against creating false expectations, the committee addressed dramatizations.

First, it declined a per se rule against dramatizing actual client testimonials with actors portraying real clients in events that actually occurred. Such a dramatization is permitted only if the client authorizes the dramatized use of the testimonial (DR 2-101(C)(2)), the dramatization accurately reflects the real testimonial and meets the N.Y. State 614 standards, and captions or announcements make clear the presentation is a dramatization in which actors portray the clients. The committee noted particular care is needed where a celebrity actor is used, so that a viewer of average education does not mistake the actor for a real client (DR 2-101(A)).

Second, it declined a per se rule against dramatizations using fictional situations and characters without any client testimonial, analogizing them to drawings or photographs used to illustrate a situation in print ads. A dramatization of an event that could reasonably occur is not false merely because the events did not happen, the services were not actually performed, and the people portrayed are not clients, provided the ad is not misleading and, where appropriate, makes clear it is a dramatization.

Third, it held a dramatization using a fictional client testimonial is unethical because it is inherently false, deceptive, and misleading: a fictional testimonial makes claims about the quality of the lawyer's services and claims that cannot be measured or verified, describing results that were not achieved (DR 2-101(A), (B); EC 2-10). A disclaimer that the presentation is a dramatization cannot overcome the inherently deceptive nature of a false testimonial. The committee answered questions one and two yes and question three no.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, under New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which New York replaced with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009. The advertising rules have been substantially revised since, and New York later adopted detailed rules on testimonials and dramatizations. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer use actors to recreate a real client's testimonial in an ad?

A: Under this opinion, yes, if the client authorizes the dramatized use, the dramatization accurately reflects the actual testimonial, and clear disclosure shows that actors are portraying the clients.

Q: Can a lawyer use a made-up scenario and characters with no testimonial?

A: Yes. The committee treated fictional dramatizations like illustrations in print ads; they are permitted if not misleading and, where appropriate, identified as dramatizations.

Q: Can a lawyer use a fictional client testimonial?

A: No. The committee held a fictional testimonial is inherently false and misleading because it claims results that were never achieved, and no disclaimer can cure that.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted New York's former Code: DR 2-101(A) (advertising that is not false or misleading), DR 2-101(B) (no unverifiable claims about service quality), DR 2-101(C)(2) (use of client names with written consent), and EC 2-10. The closest Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services). New York replaced the Code with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the provisions cited here are historical.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
• NY DR 2-101(A), (B), (C)(2); EC 2-10

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 614 (1990): client endorsements and the need for disclaimers against false expectations

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 792: Celebrity client testimonial advertising
• NY State Bar Op. 771: Website testimonials and past-results advertising
• NY State Bar Op. 664: Giving legal advice over a 900 telephone number

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-661/