What may a lawyer post on the firm website: former partnership positions in other firms, and favorable quotes from a lawyer-rating publication?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked two questions about what he may post on his firm's website: whether his biography may list his former partnership positions in other firms, and whether he may quote favorable comments about his work from a publication that rates lawyers and law firms (paragraph 1).

On former partnership positions, Rule 7.5(a) permits websites that comply with Rule 7.1, which bars false, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Rule 7.1(b)(1) expressly allows listing public offices and teaching positions, and although it does not specifically authorize former-partnership experience, Rule 7.5(a)(2) authorizes "biographical data" in professional announcement cards. The committee concluded that the biographical data permitted for announcement cards is equally permitted on a website, because accurate biographical data serves the legitimate purposes of advertising. It cautioned that such references are prohibited if false or misleading, for example if they imply a continuing relationship with the former firm, that the current firm is a successor, or that the position lasted longer or ended differently than it actually did (paragraphs 2 through 4).

On quoting a ratings publication, the committee held a website may include accurate quotations that comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.5: the quotations must be accurate and not themselves false or misleading. More specific requirements apply. A paid endorsement must be disclosed under Rule 7.1(c)(1). If the quoted statements characterize the quality of the lawyer's work, Rules 7.1(d)(4) and (e)(2)-(3) require that they be factually supportable as of the publication date and be accompanied by the disclaimer that "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" (citing N.Y. State 834). If the comments are a testimonial or endorsement from a client about a still-pending matter, Rule 7.1(e)(4) (added effective April 15, 2011) requires the client's informed consent confirmed in writing (paragraphs 5 through 6).

For quotations from a ratings publication, the committee noted that Rule 7.1(b)(1)'s allowance for "bona fide professional ratings" may temper the factual-support requirement, but a rating must at least be unbiased, nondiscriminatory, and based on a defensible method (per Comment [13]); the committee did not opine whether any particular publication's ratings qualify (paragraph 7).

In practice

The opinion holds that, under Rules 7.1 and 7.5 as they stood at the time, a firm website may carry the same accurate biographical data permitted on professional announcement cards, including former partnership positions, so long as it is not misleading about the nature, duration, or end of those positions or any continuing relationship. It also holds that a website may quote favorable comments or bona fide professional ratings, subject to several conditions the committee tied to specific subrules: accuracy, disclosure of any paid endorsement (Rule 7.1(c)(1)), factual support and the prior-results disclaimer for quality claims (Rules 7.1(d)(4), (e)(2)-(3)), and written informed consent for a testimonial about a pending matter (Rule 7.1(e)(4)).

Common questions

Q: Can my website bio list the firms where I was formerly a partner?

A: Yes, if accurate. The committee held former partnership positions are permissible biographical data, but they may not imply a continuing relationship, a successor firm, or a different duration or reason for departure than the truth (paragraphs 3 through 4).

Q: Can I quote a flattering review from a lawyer-rating publication?

A: Yes, if it complies with Rules 7.1 and 7.5. The quotation must be accurate and not misleading, any paid endorsement must be disclosed, quality claims need factual support and the prior-results disclaimer, and a pending-matter testimonial needs written client consent (paragraphs 5 through 6).

Q: Do I always need the "prior results" disclaimer?

A: When the quoted statements characterize the quality of your work, yes. Rules 7.1(d)(4) and (e)(2)-(3) require factual support and the disclaimer that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome (paragraph 6).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.1(a), (b), (c)(1), (d), and (e) (advertising standards, biographical data, paid endorsements, quality claims, testimonials) and Rule 7.5(a) and (b) (websites, announcement cards, biographical data, firm names), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. It notes the April 15, 2011 amendments that renumbered parts of Rule 7.1(c) and added the Rule 7.1(e)(4) consent requirement for testimonials about pending matters.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / NY Rule 7.1(a), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(4), (e)(2)-(4): advertising standards, biographical data, ratings, endorsements, testimonials
• MR 7.5 / NY Rule 7.5(a), (a)(2), (b): websites, announcement cards, biographical data

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 834 (2009): an advertisement containing a client testimonial requires the prior-results disclaimer of Rule 7.1(e)(3)

See also

• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 1007: Advertising a Best Lawyers Listing
• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 1005: Misleading Superlatives in Lawyer Advertising
• NY State Bar Ethics Op. 888: Website Links to Other Businesses

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-877/