District of Columbia Attorney Advertising Disclosure and Compliance Review

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ATTORNEY ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Reviewer and Advertisement Information

Part 1. Threshold Classification — Communication, Advertisement, or Solicitation

This piece is best classified as (check all that apply):

☐ A general communication about the lawyer's services (Rule 7.1(a))
☐ An advertisement directed to the public (still governed by Rule 7.1(a))
☐ An in-person solicitation of a person who has not sought the lawyer's advice (Rule 7.1(b))
☐ A referral arrangement involving payment or exchange of value (Rule 7.1(c))
☐ A communication by or through a third-party legal-services organization (Rule 7.1(d))
☐ Solicitation at or near the DC Courthouse (Rule 7.1(e) — substantially restricted)
☐ Solicitation of a person incarcerated at DC Jail, CTF, or DC juvenile facilities (Rule 7.1(f) — notice requirement)

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

Part 2. DC Rule 7.1(a) — False or Misleading Communications

The communication:

☐ Does not contain a material misrepresentation of fact or law
☐ Does not omit a fact necessary to make the statement, considered as a whole, not materially misleading
☐ Does not contain an assertion about the lawyer or the lawyer's services that cannot be substantiated (DC test — Rule 7.1(a)(2))
☐ Does not create an unjustified expectation about results (e.g., promised outcomes, specific dollar awards) — comparative or results-based statements are accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer (see Rule 7.1 cmt. [1])
☐ Comparisons with other lawyers' services can be factually substantiated (Rule 7.1 cmt. [1])
☐ Any testimonials or endorsements are accurate, not misleading, and are accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer where prior results are referenced (suggested: "This testimonial does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.")
☐ Any prior-results statements include a disclaimer that results depend on the unique facts of each case and that past results do not guarantee future outcomes
☐ Any simulated or "dramatized" scenes, actor portrayals, or stock footage that could be mistaken for a real client or event are disclosed as such
☐ All substantiation documents (data, awards, certifications, ranking criteria) are on file for any factual claims made in the advertisement

Part 3. DC Rule 7.1(b) — In-Person Solicitation Restrictions

Complete this Part only if the communication is or may be an in-person contact for the purpose of obtaining employment from a nonlawyer who has not sought the lawyer's advice. Note: DC does NOT impose a categorical ban on in-person solicitation for pecuniary gain, and does NOT impose a 30-day post-accident moratorium. DC's restrictions are content-based and condition-based.

The contact:

☐ Does not involve any statement or claim that is false or misleading within Rule 7.1(a)
☐ Does not involve coercion, duress, or harassment
☐ Is not directed at a potential client who is apparently in a physical or mental condition that would make it unlikely that the potential client could exercise reasonable, considered judgment as to the selection of a lawyer (Rule 7.1(b)(3))
☐ Is not a solicitation at or within the prohibited zone around the D.C. Courthouse — sidewalks on the north, south, and west sides of the courthouse, or within 50 feet of the building on the east side (Rule 7.1(e))
☐ If the prospective client is incarcerated at the DC Jail, Correctional Treatment Facility, or a DC juvenile detention facility AND has a then-pending criminal case in which they are represented, the soliciting lawyer will provide timely and adequate notice to the person's then-current lawyer prior to accepting any fee (Rule 7.1(f))

Part 4. DC Rule 7.1(c) — Payments for Recommendations

The lawyer is not paying money or giving anything of material value to a person (other than the lawyer's partner or employee) in exchange for recommending the lawyer's services, EXCEPT that the lawyer may:

☐ Pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by Rule 7.1
☐ Pay the usual and reasonable fees or dues charged by a legal service plan or a lawyer referral service
☐ Pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17
☐ Enter into a reciprocal referral arrangement with another lawyer or nonlawyer professional, provided:
☐ The reciprocal agreement is not exclusive, AND
☐ The client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement (Rule 7.1(c)(4))

Part 5. DC Rule 7.1(d) — Third-Party Legal Services Organizations

Complete this Part only if the lawyer's services are being promoted by or through a third-party organization that furnishes or pays for legal services to others.

☐ The lawyer does not knowingly assist the organization to promote the use of the lawyer's services if the promotional activity involves coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct (Rule 7.1(d))
☐ The organization's promotional materials comply with Rule 7.1(a)
☐ The relationship does not allow the organization or any other person to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment (Rule 5.4(c))

Part 6. DC Rule 7.5 — Firm Names, Trade Names, and Letterheads

☐ The firm name, letterhead, or other professional designation does not violate Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communication; assertions can be substantiated)
☐ Any trade name used:
☐ Does not imply a connection with a government agency
☐ Does not imply a connection with a public or charitable legal services organization
☐ Is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1
☐ If geographic ("Springfield Legal Clinic" style), an express disclaimer is included where needed to avoid the implication that the firm is a public legal aid agency (Rule 7.5 cmt. [1])
☐ For a multi-jurisdictional firm, identification of the lawyers in each office indicates the jurisdictional limitations on lawyers not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located (Rule 7.5(b))
☐ The name of any lawyer holding public office is not used in the firm name or in firm communications during any substantial period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm (Rule 7.5(c))
☐ Lawyers are not held out as practicing in a partnership or other organization unless they are in fact associated in such a relationship (Rule 7.5(d))
☐ Names of deceased or retired partners are used in conformity with Rule 7.5 cmt. [1] and DC Bar Legal Ethics Op. 277
☐ A distinctive website address or comparable professional designation is used in a manner not violating Rule 7.1 (Rule 7.5 cmt. [1])

Part 7. Specialty / Fields-of-Practice Statements (No Separate DC Rule 7.4)

☐ Statements that the lawyer practices in, concentrates in, limits practice to, or specializes in particular fields are factually accurate and can be substantiated (Rule 7.1(a)(2))
☐ Any claim that the lawyer is a "certified specialist" or similar:
☐ Accurately identifies the certifying organization (e.g., NBTA, NBLSC, or another state's certification body)
☐ Accurately identifies the field of certification
☐ Does not falsely imply DC Bar certification (the DC Bar does not operate a general specialization-certification program; verify any DC Bar certification claim)
☐ Use of "Patent Attorney" is supported by USPTO registration, where used
☐ Use of "expert," "expertise," "specialist," or "specializing in" language is supported by the lawyer's experience and does not create an unjustified expectation

Part 8. DC Rule 5.4(b) Firms — Nonlawyer Ownership Disclosure (DC-Unique)

Complete this Part only if the firm has any nonlawyer financial-interest holder or managerial-authority person under DC Rule 5.4(b).

☐ The advertisement does not falsely imply that the firm is a traditional all-lawyer partnership where the firm in fact includes nonlawyer owners/managers under Rule 5.4(b)
☐ Where the structure is material to the consumer's selection of counsel (e.g., a multidisciplinary firm offering lobbying, public affairs, or other adjacent services alongside legal services), the advertisement discloses the structure
☐ The firm's Rule 5.4(b) compliance is in place (sole purpose of providing legal services; all nonlawyer principals have agreed in writing to abide by the DC Rules and to be supervised under Rule 5.1; conditions are set forth in writing)
☐ Where the advertisement will be received in jurisdictions that do not permit nonlawyer ownership, the firm has considered:
☐ Whether marketing in that jurisdiction risks violating that jurisdiction's Rule 5.4 (see ABA Formal Op. 360 and successor opinions)
☐ Whether disclosure or limiting the offer of services to DC matters is appropriate
☐ Whether the firm's lawyers are admitted in each jurisdiction where they offer services (Rule 5.5; D.C. App. R. 49)

Part 9. Cross-Jurisdictional and Unauthorized-Practice Considerations

☐ Each lawyer named or pictured in the advertisement is identified by the jurisdictions in which the lawyer is admitted, and any DC Bar admission status is accurately stated
☐ The advertisement does not suggest the firm offers services in jurisdictions where its lawyers are not authorized to practice (Rule 5.5; D.C. App. R. 49)
☐ For a website received nationwide, the advertisement includes language clarifying the jurisdictions of practice (e.g., "Admitted to practice in the District of Columbia. [Additional jurisdictions as applicable.]")
☐ The advertisement complies with the rules of any other receiving jurisdiction that imposes more stringent requirements (e.g., MD, VA, FL labeling/disclaimer rules — verify each separately)
☐ The advertisement does not solicit clients for matters where the lawyer is not competent to practice (Rule 1.1)

Part 10. Digital, Social Media, and Website-Specific Items

☐ The firm's website identifies the firm and at least one responsible lawyer by name, and includes the firm's principal office location
☐ Each practice-area page is reviewed for accuracy of legal content and the absence of unjustified expectations
☐ Attorney biographies accurately reflect bar admissions (including jurisdictional limitations) and any material disciplinary history
☐ The website includes a clear "No Attorney-Client Relationship" disclaimer for visitor inquiries and contact forms (and notes that confidentiality protections under Rule 1.18 may apply to prospective-client communications)
☐ 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 all Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.5 requirements (including disclaimers and identification of the responsible lawyer/firm)
☐ Paid search and display ads, including Google/Bing keyword ads, identify the responsible lawyer/firm and do not contain false or misleading claims
☐ The firm does not purchase the names of other lawyers as keyword triggers in a manner that is false or misleading (verify current DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee guidance)
☐ Online client reviews that the firm solicits or responds to are handled in a manner that does not violate Rule 1.6 confidentiality (DC Bar Legal Ethics Op. 370 et seq. — verify currency)

Part 11. Generative AI, Chatbots, and Automated Client-Facing Tools

☐ Any AI chatbot or automated assistant that engages members of 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 (Rule 1.18 considerations)
☐ The chatbot is not configured to make false or misleading statements about the lawyer's services (Rule 7.1(a))
☐ The chatbot is not configured to engage in coercive, harassing, or vulnerability-targeting interactions (Rule 7.1(b) by analogy)
☐ Any generative AI used to draft advertising copy is reviewed by a responsible attorney for accuracy, factual substantiation, and Rule 7.1 compliance (Rule 1.1, Rule 5.1/5.3)
☐ 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, including human review of outputs
☐ The firm's client confidentiality and data-handling practices for the AI tool have been reviewed (Rule 1.6; verify any current DC Bar guidance)

Part 12. Required and Recommended Disclosure Language (Insert into Advertisement)

Insert the following or substantively equivalent language as applicable to the medium:

Attorney Advertising / No Attorney-Client Relationship Notice:

"This is attorney advertising. [Firm name] is a law firm and the information contained on this [website/communication] is for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this [website/communication] is intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and no attorney-client relationship is formed unless and until you have entered into a written engagement agreement with [firm name]. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

Jurisdiction Disclosure (recommended for any web-accessible content):

"[Firm name] maintains its principal office in the District of Columbia. [Lawyer name(s)] is/are admitted to practice in [jurisdictions]. The firm offers legal services only in jurisdictions in which its attorneys are licensed."

Trade Name Clarification (only if firm uses a trade name that includes a geographic or service descriptor):

"[Trade name] is the trade name of [actual firm name], a private law firm. [Trade name] is not a public legal aid agency or governmental entity."

Dramatization / Impersonation 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."

Spokesperson Disclosure (where applicable):

"[Name] is a [paid spokesperson / celebrity spokesperson] and is [not / is] an attorney with [firm name]."

Specialty / Certification Disclosure (only if true):

"[Attorney name] is certified as a [Field] Specialist by [Certifying organization, e.g., National Board of Trial Advocacy]. The District of Columbia Bar does not certify lawyers as specialists in this area."

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 communication with it does not create an attorney-client relationship with [firm name]."

Nonlawyer-Owner Disclosure (only if firm has nonlawyer owners/managers under DC Rule 5.4(b) and disclosure is material):

"[Firm name] is a District of Columbia law firm organized under D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(b). The firm includes one or more individual nonlawyer principals who provide professional services that assist the firm in delivering legal services. All principals, lawyer and nonlawyer, are bound by the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct."

Responsible Attorney Identification (recommended on all advertising):

"Responsible attorney: [________________________________], DC Bar No. [____________], [Office address: ________________________________]."

Part 13. 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
☐ The advertisement will be retained for at least 2 years from the last date of dissemination (best practice; DC has no separate Rule 7.2 retention requirement, but materials may be relevant to a Rule 7.1 inquiry by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
☐ Substantiation documentation for any factual claims has been preserved
☐ Where the advertisement will also be disseminated outside DC, the relevant other-jurisdiction retention rules (e.g., 2-year ABA Model; longer in some states) have been observed

I have reviewed the above advertisement for compliance with the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct (in particular Rules 1.18, 5.4, 5.5, 7.1, 7.5, and 8.4), the DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee opinions identified above, and current DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel 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 DC Bar No.: [________________________________]

Sources and References

• D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DC Bar)
• D.C. RPC 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services)
• D.C. RPC 7.5 (Firm Names and Letterheads)
• D.C. RPC 5.4 (Professional Independence of a Lawyer)
• D.C. RPC 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice)
• D.C. RPC 8.4 (Misconduct)
• D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49 (Unauthorized Practice of Law)
• DC Bar Legal Ethics Opinions
• DC Bar Legal Ethics Op. 277 (Firm Names — Retention of Withdrawing Partner's Name)
• DC Bar Legal Ethics Op. 362 (Nonlawyer Ownership of Discovery Service Vendors)
• DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel