Can a lawyer run ads featuring 'satisfied client' testimonials that are not from the lawyer's actual clients?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the propriety of running newspaper advertisements that purport to feature statements from "satisfied clients" that do not in fact feature any actual clients of the lawyer. The committee was of the opinion that such a practice would be false and misleading.

The committee identified two ways the practice would avoid that problem: if the ad featured an actual client who had volunteered the statements used, in the context in which the ad portrays them, or if the ad otherwise identified the "testimonials" as a dramatization so as to avoid any deception.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 7.1, governing communications concerning a lawyer's services, corresponds to Model Rule 7.1 and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer use made-up "satisfied client" testimonials in an ad?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee was of the opinion that ads featuring "satisfied client" statements that do not feature actual clients would be false and misleading.

Q: When is a testimonial ad acceptable?

A: The committee was of the opinion that the ad is acceptable if it features an actual client who volunteered the statements used, in the context in which the ad portrays them, or if it identifies the "testimonials" as a dramatization to avoid deception.

Q: Does labeling the ad as a dramatization cure the problem?

A: Yes, in the committee's view. It was of the opinion that identifying the "testimonials" as a dramatization, so as to avoid any deception, is one of the two ways the practice avoids being false and misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 7.1, corresponding to Model Rule 7.1, which bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services. The committee made the outcome turn on whether the testimonial deceives: statements presented as from satisfied clients but not actually from clients are false and misleading unless they come from a real client who volunteered them in the context shown, or the ad discloses that they are a dramatization.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1186: advertising lawyers as "personal injury experts"
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1175: using "Courthouse" in a firm address or building name
• Alabama Ethics Op. 2003-01: advertising and solicitation practices, including testimonials

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=272

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1192
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 7.1
Subject: Advertising; use of testimonials not from actual clients

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the propriety of running newspaper advertisements which purport to feature statements from "satisfied clients" which do not in fact feature any actual clients of the lawyer. The Committee was of the opinion that such a practice would be false and misleading unless the ad featured an actual client who had volunteered such statements as are used in the ad and in the context in which the ad portrays them, or otherwise identified the "testimonials" as a dramatization so as to avoid any deception.