Can a law firm let a prepaid legal plan link to the firm's website and publish 'success stories' about the firm's lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer asked whether it was permissible to allow a prepaid legal plan, with which the firm's attorneys were contracted to provide services, to (1) provide a link from the legal plan's website to the attorneys' website, and (2) include "editorials" or "success stories" about the firm's attorneys' work with the plan's members.

On the first question, the committee concluded that allowing a link from the prepaid legal plan's website to the firm's website was, in general, not restricted under the RPCs.

On the second question, the committee concluded that printing "editorials" or "success stories" about the firm or its individual lawyers may be acceptable so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2 and contains an appropriate disclaimer that reasonably allows the reader to understand that past performance does not guarantee future performance. As to the use of testimonials, the committee referred the inquirer to Published Informal Opinion 97-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Washington's advertising and solicitation rules (the RPC 7-series) have been revised since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 prepaid legal plan link from its website to the participating firm's website?

A: The committee concluded that such a link is, in general, not restricted under the RPCs.

Q: Can the plan publish "editorials" or "success stories" about the firm's lawyers?

A: The committee said such material may be acceptable so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 and 7.2 and includes a disclaimer that past performance does not guarantee future performance.

Q: What about testimonials specifically?

A: The committee referred the inquirer to Published Informal Opinion 97-1 on the use of testimonials.

Background and rules framework

The opinion's stated analysis turns on RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; truthfulness; corresponding to Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 7.2 (advertising; Model Rule 7.2), which together govern the "editorials" and "success stories." The bar indexes the opinion under RPC 7.1 and 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients; Model Rule 7.3). The opinion reflects Washington's pre-2006 rule numbering.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2 (advertising)
• Model Rule 7.3 / Washington RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients; per the bar's index)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Published Informal Opinion 97-1: use of testimonials

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1192: Fake "Satisfied Client" Testimonials in Ads

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1199

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1958
Year Issued: 2001
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.3
Subject: Links from pre-paid legal services plan to participating lawyer; use of link form legal plan site to lawyer

The inquiring lawyer asked the committee whether it is permissible to allow a pre-paid legal plan with which the firm’s attorney’s are contracted to provide services to (1) provide a link from the legal plan’s Web site to the attorney’s Web site and (2) include "editorials" or "success stories" of the firm’s attorney’s work with the plan’s members.

The opinion of the committee regarding the first question of allowing a link from the Web site of the prepaid legal plan to your firm’s Web site, in general, is that there is no restriction under the RPCs. Regarding the second question of printing of "editorials" or "success stories" about your firm and/or individual lawyers of your firm, the committee is of the opinion that such information may be acceptable so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2 and contains an appropriate disclaimer that reasonably allows the reader to understand that past performance does not guarantee future performance. As to use of testimonials, please see Published Informal Opinion 97-1.