2007 FEO 4
With the clients' consent, an attorney may use client endorsements if the clients' statements are truthful "soft" endorsements of the attorney's services that do not create unjustified expectations about the results that the attorney can achieve. A soft endorsement describes characteristics of the lawyer's client service and does not describe the results that the lawyer achieved for the client.
2012 FEO 1
USE OF CLIENT TESTIMONIALS IN ADVERTISING
Adopted: July 20, 2012
Opinion rules that testimonials that discuss characteristics of a lawyer’s client service may be used in lawyer advertising without the use of a disclaimer. Testimonials that refer generally to results may be used so long as the testimonial is accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The reference to specific dollar amounts in client testimonials is prohibited.
Testimonials that discuss characteristics of a lawyer’s client service may be used in lawyer advertising without the use of a disclaimer. Testimonials that refer generally to results may be used so long as the testimonial is accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The reference to specific dollar amounts in client testimonials is prohibited.
Rule 7.1 provides that a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication that is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve is misleading. Rule 7.1(a)(2). Depending upon their content, client testimonials have the potential to create unjustified expectations.
A distinction can be drawn between "hard" and "soft" testimonials. A "hard" testimonial goes to the outcome of a case or matter. A "soft" testimonial does not go to the outcome of the case or matter, but rather focuses on shared values or characteristics of the lawyer’s client service.
The Ethics Committee has concluded that a lawyer may incorporate "soft" client endorsements in their advertising materials without violating Rule 7.1. See 2007 FEO 4. A lawyer may use client testimonials stating that a lawyer handled a case efficiently, always acted in a professional manner, was considerate of the client’s particular needs, etc. Examples of other soft endorsements include:
"The lawyer was very knowledgeable."
"The service provided by the law firm was excellent."
"The attorney was very patient."
"We were very impressed and pleased with the commitment to service."
"My experience was one of courtesy and I found myself at ease at all times."
See Conn. Informal Op. 01-07 (2001). These statements are permissible under Rule 7.1 because they do not refer to the outcome of a particular matter and do not create unjustified expectations about the results the lawyer can achieve in any case.
"Hard" testimonials, or testimonials that indicate a particular favorable result in a case, have the potential to mislead a potential client to form an unjustified expectation that the same results can be obtained on his or her behalf. Examples of such statements include:
"The charges against me were dropped/dismissed."
"My medical bills were covered/paid."
"I was able to get Social Security/workers' compensation benefits."
"My lawyer settled my case for $500,000."
Comment [3] to Rule 7.1 states that the creation of unjustified expectations may be prevented by the use of an appropriate disclaimer. In that regard, the Ethics Committee previously approved the use of disclaimers to cure the potentially misleading nature of case summary sections on a law firm’s website. See 2009 FEO 16. The New York State Bar has applied the same rationale to client testimonials. See NY State Bar Assoc. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 771 (2003).
We similarly conclude that a lawyer may include in marketing materials client testimonials that refer generally to the outcome of a specific matter, so long as the testimonials are accompanied by an appropriate and effective disclaimer. The reference to specific dollar amounts in client testimonials is prohibited.
The disclaimer must comply with the requirements set out in Rule 7.1(b) pertaining to communications containing dramatizations. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(b), the disclaimer may be oral or written. The disclaimer must appear or be spoken at the beginning and the end of the communication and must be conspicuous. For example, any written disclaimer accompanying a written testimonial must be printed in the same font size and color as the font size and color used for the testimonial.
2018 FEO 1
Inquiry #6:
When a client is pleased with the lawyer and her services, the client’s posted review on the lawyer’s profile or webpage may contain hyperbolic accolades such as the lawyer was “the best,” “awesome,” “the smartest,” “the toughest,” etc. Is a lawyer required to seek the removal of any such review?
Opinion #6:
No. Most users of the Internet understand that reviews by third parties generally contain statements of opinion, not fact. To the extent that a third party review is a statement of opinion about the lawyer or her services, the lawyer is not professionally responsible for the statement and does not have to disclaim the review or take action to have the review removed or redacted from the lawyer’s profile or webpage. However, Rule 7.1(a) (2) and (3) prohibit a lawyer from engaging in misleading communications that create unjustified expectations or that compare a lawyer’s services with the services of other lawyers unless the comparison can be factually substantiated. If a review contains a material misstatement of objective fact, however, the lawyer must take action to have the review removed or edited to delete the misstatement, or to post a disclaimer. For example, the lawyer must take action to remove, redact, or disclaim a review that falsely states that the lawyer obtained a million dollar settlement.