Arizona Attorney Advertising Disclosure and Compliance Review

ARIZONA ATTORNEY ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Reviewer and Advertisement Information

Part 1. Threshold Classification — Communication vs. Solicitation

This piece is best classified as (check one):

☐ A general communication or advertisement about the lawyer's services, directed to the public or to a defined audience (ER 7.1)
☐ A solicitation of a specific person known or reasonably likely to need legal services in a particular matter (ER 7.3)
☐ Both (e.g., a targeted mailer to recent accident victims — ER 7.1 + ER 7.3 apply)

Audience: ☐ General public ☐ Specific persons identified by name ☐ Members of a defined group ☐ Existing or former clients ☐ Other lawyers (referral source)

Part 2. ER 7.1 — Communications About a Lawyer's Services (Substance)

The communication:

☐ Does not contain a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services
☐ Does not omit a fact necessary to make the statement, considered as a whole, not materially misleading
☐ Does not state or imply any factual or legal proposition the lawyer cannot substantiate
☐ Does not create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve
☐ Does not compare the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated
☐ Any prior-results statements are accompanied by a disclaimer that past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case and that results depend on the unique facts and law of each matter
☐ Any testimonials or endorsements are accurate, are from actual clients or are clearly labeled as not from clients, and are accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer where prior results are referenced
☐ Any simulated or "dramatized" scenes, actor-portrayals, or stock footage that could be mistaken for a real client or event are clearly disclosed as dramatizations
☐ The communication does not guarantee any specific result or imply that the firm has special influence with judges, jurors, or officials

Part 3. ER 7.1 — Mandatory Identification

☐ The communication includes the name of the lawyer or law firm responsible for its content
☐ The communication includes at least one form of contact information:
☐ Office address (city/state minimum), or
☐ Website URL, or
☐ Telephone number, or
☐ Email address
☐ For multi-jurisdictional firms or out-of-state campaigns, the communication identifies the jurisdictions of admission (or includes "Admitted to practice in Arizona only" / similar where applicable)

Part 4. ER 7.1 — Specialization, Expertise, and Practice-Area Claims

☐ Practice-area statements (e.g., "specializes in," "concentrates in," "limits practice to," "expertise in") are factually accurate and the lawyer has the requisite experience
☐ No statement claims the lawyer is a "certified specialist" UNLESS:
☐ The lawyer is certified by the State Bar of Arizona Board of Legal Specialization (or by an organization accredited by the Arizona Board), AND
☐ The communication clearly identifies the certifying organization and the field of certification
☐ "Expert" or "expertise" language is supported by the lawyer's actual experience and will not create an unjustified expectation
☐ The communication does not falsely imply specialization where none exists

Part 5. ER 7.1 — Firm Name and Trade Name

☐ The firm name does not falsely imply a connection with a government agency, public or charitable legal services organization, or a lawyer or firm not associated with the firm
☐ Any trade name used is factually accurate and not misleading
☐ Where "& Associates" or "Group" is used, the firm in fact has the requisite number of attorneys/associates
☐ The firm name does not include the name of a disbarred lawyer, a deceased lawyer who was never associated with the firm, or a lawyer who has not actually practiced with the firm
☐ Lawyers are not held out as practicing in a partnership or other organization unless they are in fact so associated
☐ For multi-jurisdiction firms, jurisdictional limitations on each listed lawyer are identified where material to the audience

Part 6. ER 7.3 — Solicitation Restrictions

Complete this Part only if the communication is or may be a solicitation under ER 7.3.

☐ The communication is not an in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic solicitation of a non-lawyer for pecuniary gain, OR
☐ The solicitation falls within an ER 7.3(a) exception — the person contacted is:
☐ Another lawyer
☐ A person with whom the lawyer has a close personal or family relationship
☐ A person with whom the lawyer has a prior professional relationship
☐ A person who routinely uses the type of legal services involved for business purposes
☐ The person solicited has not made known a desire not to be solicited
☐ The solicitation does not involve coercion, duress, or harassment
☐ The lawyer has supervised any staff, marketing vendor, or independent contractor to ensure the contact complies with ER 7.3 (ER 5.3; ER 8.4(a); ABA Formal Op. 501)
☐ For solicitations through prepaid or group legal service plans, the plan is operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer (ER 7.3(e))

Note on Arizona-specific scope: Arizona's current ER 7.3 does not require an "Advertisement" label on written, audio, or recorded targeted solicitations, and does not impose a 30-day post-accident moratorium for personal-injury/wrongful-death solicitations. However, any such mailer or recording must still comply with ER 7.1 (no false or misleading content; required identification of the responsible lawyer or firm).

Part 7. Referral Fees and Things of Value for Recommending Services

☐ Any payment of value to a referral source is conditioned on the client's informed consent to the disclosure that the client contacted the lawyer (ER 1.6; ER 1.18)
☐ The referral arrangement does not create a conflict of interest or impair the lawyer's independent professional judgment (ER 5.4 [RESERVED in AZ outside ABS], ER 2.1)
☐ The arrangement is not exclusive in a manner that would mislead the public about who is responsible for the representation
☐ The referral source is not held out as part of the firm or as a lawyer if they are not
☐ For arrangements with lawyer referral services, the service is properly registered as required by applicable rules

Part 8. Electronic Media, Digital, Social, and Website-Specific Items

☐ The firm's website identifies at least one responsible lawyer by name and includes contact information (ER 7.1)
☐ Each practice-area page is reviewed for accuracy and the absence of unjustified expectations or unsubstantiated specialization claims
☐ Attorney biographies accurately reflect bar admissions, jurisdictional limitations, AZ Bar status, and any material disciplinary history
☐ The website includes a "No Attorney-Client Relationship" disclaimer for visitor inquiries and contact forms
☐ The website includes a privacy policy that addresses how visitor information (including chat transcripts) is handled
☐ Social media posts that constitute communications about the lawyer's services comply with ER 7.1 (identification, no false or misleading content)
☐ Paid search and display ads, including Google/Bing keyword ads, identify the responsible lawyer/firm or link to a landing page that does
☐ The firm's purchase of competitor names as keyword triggers is reviewed against ER 7.1 (must not be false or misleading); Arizona has not adopted a per-se prohibition
☐ Online reviews and testimonials are not paid for in a manner that is not disclosed; any incentivized review is disclosed; the lawyer does not direct positive reviews from non-clients
☐ Live-chat tools that operate in real time are evaluated under ER 7.3 for whether they constitute live person-to-person solicitation

Part 9. Alternative Business Structure (ABS) Advertising Considerations — ACJA § 7-209

Complete this Part only if the advertising firm is a licensed ABS.

☐ The ABS license is current (verified with the Arizona Judicial Branch ABS registry)
☐ Advertising does not falsely imply that all firm owners or decision-makers are lawyers
☐ Where the ABS offers multidisciplinary services (e.g., legal + accounting + financial planning), the advertising distinguishes between legal services (subject to Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct) and non-legal services (not so subject)
☐ Where the ABS is affiliated with a non-legal parent or sister entity (e.g., audit firm, accounting firm), advertising acknowledges any restrictions (e.g., the firm cannot represent legal clients for whom the parent provides financial-statement audits, as a condition of approval in some orders)
☐ For multi-state digital campaigns, the firm has considered:
☐ California Bus. & Prof. Code restrictions on fee sharing with out-of-state ABS firms (AB 931)
☐ Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion limiting Texas-attorney participation in firms with nonlawyer ownership
☐ Maryland and other states' restrictions
☐ The advertising discloses ABS status where required by other jurisdictions in which the ad is disseminated
☐ The ABS Compliance Lawyer has reviewed and approved the advertisement (best practice; required for some ABS internal-policy audits under ACJA § 7-209(K))

Part 10. Generative AI, Chatbots, and Automated Client-Facing Tools

☐ Any AI chatbot or automated assistant that engages the public is clearly disclosed as non-attorney ("You are chatting with an automated assistant, not an attorney.")
☐ The chatbot does not provide legal advice and explicitly disclaims that no attorney-client relationship is formed by the interaction
☐ The chatbot is configured to avoid real-time solicitation of specific prospective clients in a manner that would violate ER 7.3
☐ Any generative AI used to draft advertising copy is reviewed by a responsible attorney for accuracy, factual substantiation, and ER 7.1 compliance
☐ AI-generated images or video of people who could be mistaken for clients, attorneys, or judges include a disclaimer that the image is AI-generated or a dramatization
☐ The firm has documented its AI usage and supervision policy (ER 5.3; ABA Formal Op. 512 (2024))
☐ The firm's client confidentiality and data-handling practices for AI tools have been reviewed (ER 1.6, ER 1.1)

Part 11. Suggested Disclosure Language (Insert into Advertisement)

Insert the following or substantively equivalent language as applicable:

General Disclaimer:

"[Firm name] is a law firm licensed in Arizona. The information in this [website/communication] is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Communication through this [website/communication] does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is formed unless and until you have entered into a written engagement agreement with [firm name]."

Prior Results / Testimonials Disclaimer:

"Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case depends on its own facts and applicable law. Testimonials reflect the experience of the individual client and may not be representative of the experience of other clients."

Contingency-Fee Disclosure (where applicable):

"If we represent you on a contingency basis, our attorney's fee will be a percentage of any recovery. You will [☐ remain / ☐ not remain] liable for case expenses regardless of outcome. Whether the contingency percentage is calculated before or after deduction of expenses will be specified in your written fee agreement (Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.5(c))."

Dramatization / Actor Disclosure (where applicable):

"Dramatization. Scenes depicted are simulated for illustrative purposes and do not represent actual clients or events. Persons appearing are actors and not clients of the firm."

Certified Specialist Disclosure (only if true):

"[Attorney name] is certified as a Specialist in [field of law] by the State Bar of Arizona Board of Legal Specialization."

Chatbot / AI Disclosure (where applicable):

"You are interacting with an automated assistant. This assistant is not an attorney, does not provide legal advice, and your interaction with it does not create an attorney-client relationship with [firm name]."

Responsible Attorney Identification (required by ER 7.1):

"Responsible attorney: [________________________________], AZ Bar No. [____________]. [Office address, telephone, website, or email]."

ABS Disclosure (only if firm is a licensed ABS):

"[Firm name] is licensed as an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) by the Arizona Supreme Court under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 33.1 and ACJA § 7-209. The firm includes nonlawyer owners or decision-makers. All legal services are provided by lawyers admitted to practice in Arizona, who are bound by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct and exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of clients."

Part 12. Record Retention and Reviewer Certification

☐ A copy of the advertisement (in its final form, in each medium where used) has been saved to the firm's advertising archive
☐ A record of dates and venues of dissemination has been logged
☐ Substantiation files for any factual claims (statistics, results, awards, certifications) are retained
☐ The advertisement and substantiation will be retained for at least 2 years (recommended best practice; no current Arizona rule mandate)
☐ A voluntary review through the State Bar of Arizona Practice 2.0 Advertising Voluntary Review program was considered for high-risk creative

I have reviewed the above advertisement for compliance with Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 7.1 and ER 7.3, related Ethical Rules, ACJA § 7-209 (where applicable), and current State Bar of Arizona guidance, and certify the following:

☐ All applicable items are checked, OR
☐ Deficiencies have been identified and a remediation plan is documented below

Deficiencies / Remediation Notes:

[____________________________________________________________]

[____________________________________________________________]

[____________________________________________________________]

Reviewer Signature: ________________________________ Date: [__/__/____]

Reviewer Printed Name and AZ Bar No.: [________________________________]

Sources and References

• Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 7.1 — Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
• Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 7.3 — Solicitation of Clients
• Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, Rule 42 (Full Rules of Professional Conduct Table of Contents)
• Arizona Supreme Court Order R-20-0020 (Jan. 1, 2021 amendments to ERs 7.1–7.5)
• State Bar of Arizona — FAQs Regarding 1/1/2021 Rule Changes Impacting Law Practice (ERs, LP, ABS)
• ACJA § 7-209 — Alternative Business Structures (current)
• State Bar of Arizona — Legal Specialization (Board of Legal Specialization)
• State Bar of Arizona — Practice 2.0
• ABA Formal Op. 512 (July 2024) — Generative AI Tools in the Practice of Law