Can an Ohio law firm put client testimonials, client names, or links to its case opinions on the firm's website?
Ohio BPC Opinion 2000-006: Client Testimonials, Client Names, and Case Links on a Law Firm Web Site
Short answer: The opinion concluded that a law firm website may not include client testimonial quotations describing the firm's services, even with consent, but may list a client's name with the client's consent and may link from an attorney's biography to published opinions of cases in which the attorney participated.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Currency note
The Board withdrew this opinion by Opinion 2016-8 on October 7, 2016, so it is not current guidance. Separately, the opinion's central holding rested on the testimonial ban in DR 2-101(A)(3), and the Board's status list flags that, pursuant to the January 24, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of Ohio, DR 2-101(A)(3) is not enforceable until further order of the court. For both reasons this page is indexed here as historical research only.
This opinion also issued in 2000, before Ohio's adoption of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (effective February 1, 2007). The DR 2-101 and DR 2-103 provisions discussed here are now addressed by Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1 and 7.2. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and Opinion 2016-8 before relying on anything here.
Plain-English summary
The Board answered three questions about a law firm's website. The first was whether the home page could include client quotations, given with consent, describing the general nature of the legal services provided, the firm's responsiveness, and other non-substantive aspects of the representation. The Board concluded such quotations were improper. It treated them as client testimonials prohibited under DR 2-101(A)(3); as potentially misleading to the public under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (C) depending on content; as claims about a lawyer's character and the quality of services that cannot be verified by objective standards under DR 2-101(A)(4); and as improperly involving the lawyer in requesting that a client recommend or promote the firm's services under DR 2-103(C).
The second question was whether the firm could list a client's name in public communication such as a website. The Board concluded that listing a client's name with the client's consent was proper and was not prohibited by any rule in the Code. As a matter of courtesy and confidentiality, the Board added that a lawyer should not publicly list a client's name without consent.
The third question was whether the firm could link from an attorney's biography to published opinions of cases the attorney participated in. The Board concluded such a link was proper. Rather than being a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statement under DR 2-101(A)(1), the link provided factual information that could help educate the public.
Common questions
Q: Could an Ohio law firm post client testimonials on its website if the clients consented?
A: No. The opinion concluded that client testimonial quotations describing the firm's services were improper even with consent, treating them as prohibited testimonials and unverifiable quality claims under DR 2-101.
Q: Could the firm list a client's name on the website?
A: Yes, with the client's consent. The opinion concluded that listing a client's name with consent was not prohibited by any rule, while advising against listing a name without consent.
Q: Could an attorney biography link to published opinions in the attorney's cases?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded such a link provided factual, educational information and was not a misleading or self-laudatory statement under DR 2-101(A)(1).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101 (information about legal services, including the bans on false or misleading communications and on testimonials) and DR 2-103(C) (requesting recommendations of professional employment). Those subjects are now addressed by Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1 and 7.2 (Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2). The testimonial provision the opinion applied, DR 2-101(A)(3), was later made unenforceable by the Supreme Court of Ohio's January 24, 2005 order.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A)(1), DR 2-101(A)(3), DR 2-101(A)(4), DR 2-101(C), DR 2-103(C)
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-024: Client Testimonials in Advertising
- Ohio BPC Op. 1999-004: Law Firm Website Domain Name
- Ohio BPC Op. 1999-003: Attorney Listing in an Online Membership Directory
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_00-006.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2000-6
Issued December 1, 2000
[Withdrawn- by Opinion 2016-8 on October 7, 2016]
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded
by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
[Not current-pursuant to Jan. 24, 2005 order of the Supreme Court of Ohio, DR 2-101(A)(3) is not
enforceable until further order of the court.]
SYLLABUS: It is improper under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility for a law
firm’s Web site home page to include quotations from clients, even with their consent,
describing the general nature of the legal services provided, responsiveness of the law firm,
and other non-substantive aspects of the firm’s representation. Such client quotations
constitute client testimonials prohibited under DR 2-101(A)(3); may be misleading to the
public under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (C) depending upon the content of the quotation; are
claims regarding the character of a lawyer and the quality of a law firm’s services that
cannot be verified by reference to objective standards under DR 2-101(A)(4); and involve
the lawyer or law firm in improperly requesting that a client recommend or promote the
law firm’s services to others under DR 2-103(C).
It is proper for a law firm to list a client’s name with the client’s consent in public
communication, such as a law firm Web site. Such listing of a client’s name is not
prohibited by any rule within the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. As a matter
of courtesy and confidentiality, a lawyer should not publicly list a client’s name without
client consent.
A law firm’s Web site may provide a link from an attorney’s biography to published
opinions of cases in which such attorney participated. A link from an attorney’s biography
to published opinions of cases in which the attorney participated is not considered a false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statement under DR 2-
101(A)(1), but rather provides factual information that may help educate the public.
OPINION: Three questions are addressed.
1. May a law firm’s Web site home page include quotations from clients,
with their consent, describing the general nature of the legal services
provided, responsiveness of the law firm, and other non-substantive
aspects of the firm’s representation?
2. May a law firm list a client’s name with the client’s consent in public
communication, such as a law firm Web site?
Op. 2000-6 2
3. May a law firm’s Web site provide a link from an attorney’s biography
to published opinions of cases in which such attorney participated?
Question One
May a law firm’s Web site home page include quotations from clients, with
their consent, describing the general nature of the legal services provided,
responsiveness of the law firm, and other non-substantive aspects of the
firm’s representation?
A law firm inquires regarding the use of client quotations on the home page of the law firm
Web site. The proposed quotations would be general statements from existing clients
regarding the law firm’s service, responsiveness, and style. The quotations would not
describe any particular transaction or litigation matter that the firm has handled or currently
handles. The Web site would identify the quoted client by name and company along with
an image of the individual and/or the logo, building, or other recognizable image of the
company.
The applicable rules in the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility are DR 2-101(A)(1),
(3), (4), DR 2-101(C), and DR 2-103(C).
DR 2-101(A) A lawyer shall not, on his or her own behalf or that of a
partner, associate, or other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer’s
firm, use, or participate in the use of, any form of public communication,
including direct mail solicitation, that:
(1) Contains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-
laudatory, or unfair statement;
(3) Contains any testimonial of past or present clients pertaining
to the lawyer’s capability (Emphasis added);
(4) Contains any claim that is not verifiable.
DR 2-101(C) A communication is false or misleading if it satisfies any of
the following:
(1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a
fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading;
(2) Is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the
lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can
achieve results by means that violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility or other law;
Op. 2000-6 3
(3) Is subjectively self-laudatory, or compares a lawyer’s services
with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be
factually substantiated.
DR 2-103(C) A lawyer shall not request a person or organization to
recommend or promote the use of the lawyer’s services or those of the
lawyer’s partner or associate, or any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer
or the lawyer’s firm, as a private practitioner, except that; (exceptions not
applicable herein).
At issue is whether these rules prohibit a law firm from communicating on its Web site
home page a client quotation describing the general nature of services provided,
responsiveness and other non-substantive aspects of the firm’s representation. Is such
client quotation a client testimonial pertaining to the lawyer’s capability [DR 2-101(A)(3)];
a misleading statement [DR 2-101(A)(1) and C]; a claim that is not verifiable [DR 2-
101(A)(4)]; and/or a response to a lawyer’s improper request to a client to recommend or
promote the lawyer’s services [DR 2-103(C)]?
DR 2-101(A)(3) prohibits client testimonials pertaining to a lawyer’s capabilities, but does
not define “testimonial.” Therefore, the Board interprets the word “testimonial” as it is
customarily defined.
Testimonial
1. A formal or written statement testifying to a particular truth or fact.
2. A written affirmation of another’s worth or character.
3. Something given as a tribute for one’s service or achievement.
Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 1196 (1984).
Thus, a testimonial includes objective statements of a truth or fact as well as subjective
affirmation of worth or character. A statement made by a client regarding the nature of the
legal services provided is a statement of truth or fact. A statement made by a client as to
law firm’s responsiveness to the client’s need is an affirmation of the character of the
lawyers within the firm. As such, these statements by clients are testimonials that DR 2-
101(C)(3) prohibits.
Although not adopted in Ohio, ABA Model Rule 7.1 similarly prohibits client testimonials,
referred to in the model rule as client endorsements.
ABA Model Rule 7.1 A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading
communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A
communication is false or misleading if it:
Op. 2000-6 4
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a
fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading;
(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the
lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can
achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law; or
(c) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyer’s services,
unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.
The Comment to ABA Model Rule 7.1 states that “[t]he prohibition in paragraph (b) of
statements that may create ‘unjustified expectations’ would ordinarily preclude
advertisements about results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage
award or the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable verdicts, and advertisements
containing client endorsements.” (Emphasis added).
In Opinion 89-24, this Board advised that “[a]dvertisements containing client testimonials
are not permitted under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. At the time that
opinion was issued, there was no rule like current DR 2-101(A)(3) specifically prohibiting
client testimonials. [(DR 2-101(A)(3) was amended to the Code effective January 1, 1993].
Nevertheless, even without a specific rule, other rules were interpreted as a prohibition on
client testimonials. In Opinion 89-24, the Board stated:
In our view, a client’s testimonial regarding his or her lawyer misleads the
public into believing that similar results can be achieved if they hire that
lawyer, thereby creating an unjustified expectation. In addition,
testimonials are subjective statements regarding the quality of a lawyer’s
services which cannot be verified by reference to objective standards
established by the profession. Such statements of quality are generally
banned because they are not capable of objective verification and mislead
the public. See, Moss, Law Practice Marketing, 61 Notre Dame L. Rev.
619 (1986).
We believe that a lawyer cannot effectively avoid the ban on self-laudatory
statements by having a client make such statements. In addition, under DR
2-103(C), a lawyer cannot request a person or organization to recommend
or promote the lawyer’s services (exceptions not applicable). An attorney
is also forbidden from giving anything of value to someone in return for
recommending the attorney for employment. These restrictions are
intended to protect members of the public from lawyers who may use
misleading advertising or engage in conduct that is likely to impair public
confidence in the legal system.
Ohio Sup Ct, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 89-24 (1989).
Op. 2000-6 5
The current Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility includes the specific prohibition on
client testimonials in DR 2-101(A)(3) as well as rules similar to the rules on which the
advice in Op. 89-24 was based. As set forth above, current DR 2-101(A)(1) prohibits false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair statements and DR 2-101(C)
describes false and misleading communication. Current DR 2-101(A)(4) prohibits claims
that are not verifiable. Current DR 2-103(C) prohibits lawyers from requesting others to
recommend or promote the use of the lawyer’s services.
As to the present inquiry, this Board’s view is that a law firm’s public communication of
client quotations describing the general nature of the legal services provided,
responsiveness of the law firm, and other non-substantive aspects of the firm’s
representation is improper under the professional rules of conduct. This view is based on
the current rules in the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and is consistent with
ABA Model Rule 7.1, the Comment thereto, and the advice offered by the Board in Opinion
89-24.
Thus, as to the question raised, the Board advises that it is improper under the Ohio Code
of Professional Responsibility for a law firm’s Web site home page to include quotations
from clients, even with their consent, describing the general nature of the legal services
provided, responsiveness of the law firm, and other non-substantive aspects of the firm’s
representation. Such client quotations constitute client testimonials prohibited under DR
2-101(A)(3); may be misleading to the public under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (C) depending
upon the content of the quotation; are claims regarding the character of a lawyer and the
quality of a law firm’s services that cannot be verified by reference to objective standards
under DR 2-101(A)(4); and involve the lawyer or law firm in improperly requesting that a
client recommend or promote the law firm’s services to others under DR 2-103(C).
Question Two
May a law firm list a client’s name with the client’s consent in public
communication, such as a law firm Web site?
While not asked to address whether the listing of client names in public communications
is proper, the Board will so address because it is an obvious extension of the question
raised. The Cincinnati Bar Association has already addressed the issue. In Opinion 96-
97-01, the Cincinnati Bar Association advised that an “attorney or law firm may list on the
attorney’s or law firm’s Internet Home Page the name of a client regularly represented,
provided that written consent has been obtained.”
A prior version of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility contained a rule, DR 2-
101(B)(20) addressing the listing of client names. DR 2-101(B)(20), permitted attorneys
to publish or broadcast “[i]n law directories and law lists only, names and addresses of
references, and, with their written consent, names of clients regularly represented.” That
rule was deleted from the Code when DR 2-101 was amended effective March 1, 1986.
Op. 2000-6 6
The current version of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility does not mention the
use of client names or client lists in attorney advertising, not even in DR 2-101(D). DR 2-
101(D) lists information that “will be presumed to be informational rather than solely
promotional or self-laudatory, and acceptable for dissemination under these rules, if
accurate and presented in a dignified manner.” However, the absence of client names from
DR 2-101(D) does not indicate that the use of client names is improper. The DR 2-101(D)
list is an illustrative list, not an exhaustive list.
In this Board’s view, there is no rule within the Code that would prohibit the listing of a
client name. The listing of a client name is not a client testimonial under DR 2-101(C)(3).
It is neither a statement testifying to a particular truth or fact (other than the fact that the
named person or entity is a client), nor is it an affirmation of another’s worth or character.
Requesting consent to list a client’s name does not violate DR 2-103(C). It is not a request
for a client to recommend or promote the legal services of the lawyer or law firm. It is
merely a request for permission to list publicly a client’s name as a client of the law firm.
Thus, as to Question Two, the Board advises that it is proper for a law firm to list a client’s
name with the client’s consent in public communication. Such listing of a client’s name is
not prohibited by any rule within the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. As a
matter of courtesy and confidentiality, a lawyer should not publicly list a client’s name
without client consent.
Question Three
May a law firm’s Web site provide a link from an attorney’s biography to published
opinions of cases in which such attorney participated?
This Board advises that a law firm’s Web site may provide a link from an attorney’s
biography to published opinions of cases in which such attorney participated. A link from
an attorney’s biography to published opinions of cases in which the attorney participated
is not considered a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair
statement under DR 2-101(A)(1), but rather provides factual information that may help
educate the public.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar
of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney’s Oath
of Office.