If a law firm's website uses client testimonials or reports of past results, must it post a disclaimer that past results don't guarantee future outcomes?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm website that includes client testimonials and claims of past results must carry a disclaimer that past results do not guarantee similar future outcomes. The Code permits lawyer advertising as long as it is not false, deceptive, or misleading (DR 2-101(A)), and the committee had already held website advertising permissible on that basis (N.Y. State 709). The Code does not prohibit testimonials or reports of past results; the committee declined to adopt a per se ban in N.Y. State 614, holding instead that endorsements which create unjustified expectations, give false hopes, or omit sufficient information are improper because they are false, deceptive, or misleading.

On the disclaimer question, the committee holds the Code does not require a disclaimer of any kind for testimonials or past results. Its earlier suggestion to the contrary in N.Y. State 614 rested on N.Y. State 539 and former DR 2-101(B), which barred claims that "cannot be measured or verified" and has since been repealed. So the test is now whether, without a disclaimer, the testimonials or past results render the ad false, deceptive, or misleading under DR 2-101(A). The lawyer must review each proposed ad case by case; the committee notes that testimonials which do not distinguish the facts and law of each case, or the sheer volume of information on a multi-page website, can create unjustified expectations.

If testimonials or past results are misleading (but not false or deceptive), cautionary language that prior results do not guarantee a similar future outcome may bring the ad into compliance, and additional language may be needed if the ad misleads for other reasons. Any disclaimer must be prominently placed so the reader is likely to read it in connection with the testimonial, with attention to text size, proximity, and, for a linked disclaimer, the prominence of the link. The committee stresses that if an ad is false or deceptive (rather than merely creating unjustified expectations), no disclaimer can cure it. The opinion modifies N.Y. State 614 and 539 to the extent they rested on the repealed DR 2-101(B).

In practice

Under the New York Code as it stood at the time, the opinion holds that there is no automatic disclaimer requirement for testimonials or past results; the governing question is whether the ad is false, deceptive, or misleading under DR 2-101(A), assessed case by case. The committee separates two categories: an ad that is merely misleading because it may create unjustified expectations can be cured by a tailored, prominently placed disclaimer, while an ad that is false or deceptive cannot be cured by any disclaimer. It also flags placement mechanics for web disclaimers (size, proximity, and link prominence) as part of whether the disclaimer actually works.

Common questions

Q: Can a law firm put client testimonials and past results on its website?

A: Yes. The committee holds the Code does not prohibit them; they become improper only if they create unjustified expectations or are otherwise false, deceptive, or misleading under DR 2-101(A).

Q: Is a "past results don't guarantee future outcomes" disclaimer required?

A: No, not per se. The committee holds the Code does not require any disclaimer; the earlier suggestion otherwise rested on the now-repealed DR 2-101(B).

Q: When does a disclaimer help?

A: Where the testimonials or past results are misleading but not false or deceptive, a tailored disclaimer, prominently placed so the reader is likely to see it with the testimonial, may bring the ad into compliance.

Q: Can a disclaimer fix a false or deceptive ad?

A: No. The committee is explicit that if an ad is false or deceptive, as opposed to merely creating unjustified expectations, no disclaimer cures the violation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility. DR 2-101(A) bars false, deceptive, or misleading communications about a lawyer's services (the substance of Model Rule 7.1), and DR 2-101 generally governs advertising (the subject of Model Rule 7.2). EC 2-10 cautions against puffery and unverifiable claims to the extent they are false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair. The opinion's pivot is the repeal of DR 2-101(B), which had supported a measurement-and-verification rationale for requiring disclaimers; with that gone, the analysis collapses into the DR 2-101(A) false-deceptive-misleading test.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services); NY DR 2-101(A)
• MR 7.2 (advertising); NY DR 2-101, DR 2-102

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), false, deceptive, or misleading advertising is subject to restraint
• In re Von Wiegen, 63 N.Y.2d 163 (1984), a flat ban on direct-mail advertising was an unconstitutional content-based restriction

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 709 (1998): website advertising is permissible if not false, deceptive, or misleading
• N.Y. State 614 (1990): no per se ban on testimonials; improper if they create unjustified expectations; modified here
• N.Y. State 539 (1982): unverifiable claims under former DR 2-101(B); modified here

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1005: Misleading superlatives in lawyer advertising
• NY State Bar Op. 897: "Deal of the day" marketing of legal services
• NY State Bar Op. 851: Using a law firm photograph in a newspaper advertisement

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-771/