Inventory three categories: claims that create unjustified expectations about results, comparative superlatives you cannot substantiate, and copy written by vendors you never reviewed. Those are where exposure usually sits. Which of them is actually a problem depends on your state, and that question belongs to your bar, not your marketing firm.
Why this is a search problem too
Most marketing advice is written for businesses that can say anything. "Best in class." "Proven results." "We win." Standard commercial copy — and unavailable to you.
That constraint collides with search in a way nobody warns you about. The vendor writing your pages optimises for conversion using patterns borrowed from unregulated industries. The copy converts. It also creates exposure that you carry and they don't.
So this inventory is worth building whether or not you think you have a problem, because whoever wrote your site probably wasn't thinking about advertising rules at all.
The rules are not the same everywhere — and that matters more than it used to
Attorney advertising is governed state by state. Every state's rules descend from the ABA Model Rules, which historically placed advertising provisions at Rules 7.1 through 7.5.
In 2018 the ABA amended and consolidated those provisions. States adopted that change unevenly. Some restructured to match. Some kept the older numbering and substance. Some adopted parts. The practical consequence for you: an article about "Rule 7.2 requirements" may be describing a rule your state doesn't have in that form, and multi-state firms are working against several regimes simultaneously.
This is why we do not tell you what your rules say. We can tell you which categories of copy generate questions nearly everywhere.
The inventory
Go page by page. Flag anything in these categories. You are not deciding whether it's permitted — you are building a list.
Comparative superlatives. "Best," "top-rated," "premier," "leading," "#1." These assert comparative quality, and the question that follows is whether it can be substantiated.
Past results. Case outcomes, settlement figures, verdict amounts, win rates. The recurring concern across jurisdictions is whether a specific past result creates an unjustified expectation about a future one. Many states address this through disclaimer requirements; the requirements differ.
Testimonials that function as results claims. A client saying you were responsive is different from a client saying you won them a large settlement. The second does the work of a results claim in someone else's voice.
Specialisation and expertise language. "Specialist," "expert," and "certified" are treated distinctly in many states, often tied to whether a recognised certifying body exists in that field. This catches people who think of the words as ordinary English.
Attribution and identifying information. Many states require a website to identify a responsible lawyer, an office address, or both, sometimes in a specific form. Check whether your site does more than list a footer address.
Copy you did not write. Directory profiles, lead-generation landing pages, vendor-built microsites. These are generally still communications about your services and your responsibility. Pay particular attention to lead generators whose pages imply they are recommending you — that framing raises questions in a lot of jurisdictions.
Anything from a merger, rebrand, or predecessor firm. Old firm names and departed attorneys still appearing on live pages are a routine finding and rarely deliberate.
What multi-state firms should add
If you're licensed in more than one state, add a column to the inventory: which states does this page target? A page optimised for a market where you're admitted may be evaluated under that state's rules regardless of where your office is. That question — whose rules apply to a website reaching multiple states — is genuinely contested, varies by jurisdiction, and is exactly the kind of thing to raise with counsel rather than resolve from an article.
What you can and can't conclude
Verified — What your website says. You can read it and list it. The inventory is the whole deliverable here.
Pending — Whether any item is a problem. That is a legal judgment about your jurisdiction, your facts, and current interpretation. A marketing audit flags categories; it cannot clear them. Anyone in marketing telling you your copy is compliant is doing something they are not qualified to do — us included.
Unconfirmed — How your state's rules treat any specific phrase. We are not lawyers and we do not guess at this.
Where to take the list
Most state bars run an ethics advisory service, and many publish advertising-specific guidance or opinions. That is generally the cheapest first stop, and considerably cheaper than paying counsel to read your entire website cold. Bring a list of flagged items rather than a URL — you'll get a faster answer and a smaller bill.
Some states also offer advertising filing or pre-review programs. Worth knowing whether yours does.
If your reply to a review is what you're worried about rather than your site copy, that's a different rule and a different analysis — see how do I tell if I can respond to a bad review without breaching confidentiality. The full symptom map is at how do I tell if my website is losing me clients.
SEO Doctor is a marketing diagnostics firm. We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. Attorney advertising rules vary by state and change; nothing here describes the requirements of any particular jurisdiction. Confirm any question about your own advertising with your state bar or with counsel admitted where you practise.