Explainer · 3 min read
Legal Ethics and AI Search Visibility: The Advertising Rules Still Apply
What ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and Formal Opinion 512 mean for the pages, profiles and AI-assisted drafts behind your AI visibility work.
Short answer
Lawyer advertising rules apply to the pages AI tools read. ABA Model Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications, including by omission, and Rule 7.2 limits paying for recommendations and requires a responsible lawyer's name and contact information. Formal Opinion 512 covers a lawyer's use of generative AI tools. States adopt their own versions, so check yours.
Key takeaways
- Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading statements about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, including truthful statements that mislead.
- Unsubstantiated comparisons and results that suggest the same outcome for other clients can be misleading under the comments to Rule 7.1.
- Rule 7.2 restricts giving anything of value for a recommendation, with listed exceptions, and requires the name and contact information of a responsible lawyer or firm.
- Formal Opinion 512 lists the duties that apply when lawyers use generative AI, including competence, confidentiality and supervision.
- These are model rules. Your state bar's rules and opinions control, and this page is not legal advice.
Why ethics comes before tactics
AEO is publishing work: pages, bios, profiles, comparisons and sometimes reviews. All of that is a communication about a lawyer's services, so the advertising rules in your state apply to it. We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. This article points to the ABA Model Rules, which many states have adopted in some form, so you know what to ask your state bar or ethics counsel.
Rule 7.1: no false or misleading communications
Model Rule 7.1 says a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement, taken as a whole, not materially misleading.
The comments matter for AEO content in three ways.
- True but misleading is still prohibited. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a necessary fact, or if there is a substantial likelihood it will lead a reasonable person to a conclusion about the lawyer or the services that has no reasonable factual foundation.
- Results claims need care. A communication that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements may mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the facts of each case.
- Comparisons need support. An unsubstantiated claim about services or fees, or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers, may be misleading if presented with enough specificity that a reasonable person would think it can be substantiated.
For AEO this means a page that says "best" or "most experienced" without support is a risk, and so is a page that lists case results with no context. AI tools may quote those statements without the context.
Rule 7.2: recommendations and who is responsible
Model Rule 7.2 allows a lawyer to communicate information about the lawyer's services through any media. Two parts matter here.
- Paying for recommendations. Rule 7.2(b) says a lawyer shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except for listed exceptions. Be careful with anything that pays for reviews, endorsements or listings that read as recommendations, and read our note on third-party profiles, directories and reviews.
- Responsible lawyer. Rule 7.2(d) says any communication under the rule must include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. Put the firm name and a way to reach it on every page, which also helps readers and search systems see who stands behind the page.
AI-assisted drafting
ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued July 29, 2024, addresses lawyers' use of generative AI tools. It says lawyers using these tools must fully consider their ethical obligations, including duties to provide competent representation, protect client information, communicate with clients, supervise employees and agents, advance only meritorious claims, ensure candor toward the tribunal and charge reasonable fees. The opinion is about legal work, not marketing copy. Our reading is that the same habits protect your website: review every AI-assisted draft as your own work, supervise the people and vendors who produce it, and keep client information out of tools you have not vetted.
Google's guidance points the same way. It says generative AI can help with research and structure, tells publishers to fact-check and review AI-generated content, including titles, meta descriptions and structured data, and says to consider telling readers how content was created. Using AI to mass-produce pages without adding value may violate its policy on scaled content abuse.
Bios, credentials and reviews
Google says fabricated creator profiles, such as made-up names, AI-generated headshots or false credentials, are treated as deception. The same fabrication would also raise Rule 7.1 problems for a law firm. Keep bios factual and verifiable, and see attorney bios and firm identity. Do not write reviews for your firm or pay for them, and follow each platform's review policies and your bar's rules.
A review checklist before you publish
- Can you support every factual claim on the page, including superlatives and comparisons?
- Do results claims carry the context a reader needs, and do they avoid suggesting a guaranteed outcome?
- Does the page name the firm and a responsible lawyer and give contact information?
- Did a lawyer review any AI-assisted text, and did you keep client information out of the tools?
- Have you checked your state bar's advertising rules and any required disclaimers?
Common questions
Does Rule 7.1 apply to what an AI tool says about my firm?
The rule governs your own communications, not another company's output. But an AI tool that quotes your page repeats your wording, so every claim on the page should be one you can support. Wrong statements an AI tool makes on its own are a different problem, and the AI answer audit helps you find them so you can correct the sources.
Can I use AI to write my pages?
Google allows AI-generated content that meets its spam policies and asks you to fact-check and review it, and Formal Opinion 512 describes the duties lawyers carry when using generative AI. Review everything before publishing, never enter client confidences into a tool without checking its terms, and check your state's guidance.
Can I pay a vendor for AI visibility work?
Paying a vendor to improve your own website is not the same thing as paying a person to recommend you, but pay-for-placement and lead arrangements can raise separate questions under state rules. Ask your state bar or ethics counsel, and ask the vendor how any placement is earned. Two of this site's sponsors sell related services, so apply the same scrutiny to them.
Sources
- ABA Model Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
- Comment on ABA Model Rule 7.1
- ABA Model Rule 7.2: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, Specific Rules
- ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools
- Google Search Central: Using generative AI content on your website
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
Informational only. This article is general education about search and AI visibility. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and we do not guarantee that any statement in it is accurate, complete or current. No one can guarantee that an AI tool will name your firm. Lawyer advertising rules differ by state, so check your state bar's rules and talk to a qualified attorney before you publish claims about your firm. The update date above shows when we last checked.