Most lawyers I work with know there are ABA rules about how the firm can market itself. They know there’s something about not promising results, something about not claiming to be a specialist, something vague about “in-person solicitation.” But when it comes to the specific question — can I ask my closed clients for a Google review, and if so, how — most firms have never sat down and read the rules carefully. They follow whatever the SEO vendor told them. Which is usually fine, often safe, sometimes not.
This page is the compliance map. Which rules are in play, what they actually say about reviews, what they let you do and what they don’t, the incentive question (gift cards, thank-you presents, fee discounts), the in-person solicitation rule under 7.3 and whether it applies to review asks, and the state-by-state variants — with an Arizona-specific section because that’s the home market and the bar there has a few quirks worth knowing. None of this is legal advice. I’m an SEO who has read the rules carefully because they directly shape what I can recommend to clients. If you want a formal opinion on your firm’s specific practice, that comes from your state bar’s ethics committee or your malpractice carrier, not from me.
The three rules in play — 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Three ABA Model Rules shape what a law firm can do around client reviews. Rule 7.1 covers communications about the lawyer’s services — prohibiting false or misleading statements. Rule 7.2 covers communications concerning the lawyer’s services in advertising and the related question of paying for recommendations. Rule 7.3 covers solicitation of clients — the rule that gets the most attention but is often misapplied to review generation.
Most state bars have adopted these rules in some form. The numbering is consistent across most jurisdictions. The substance varies — some states have stricter additions, some have looser interpretations, a few have substantial deviations. Florida, Texas, New York, and California are the four largest jurisdictions with substantial non-ABA-baseline modifications. If you practice in those states, your state-specific rules govern. If you practice elsewhere, the ABA Model Rules are generally a good starting point and your state’s version usually tracks closely.
Rule 7.1 — the truthfulness rule
Rule 7.1 prohibits “false or misleading communications” about a lawyer’s services. The rule covers anything a lawyer or firm communicates publicly — website copy, advertising, social media, the review ask itself, the firm’s response to a review. The rule has been read broadly. A communication can be “misleading” even if literally true if it would create an unjustified expectation in a reasonable consumer.
For review solicitation, 7.1 means — the ask itself can’t promise or imply that the client should make specific claims. “Please tell people we got you the maximum settlement” is bad on multiple levels (the claim is unsubstantiated, the implication is that this firm always gets maximums, the ask is steering the content). “Please share your experience” is fine. The neutral ask is the safe ask.
7.1 also covers what the firm does with the resulting reviews. Cherry-picking only the best reviews to display on the firm’s website (without a representative sample or disclaimer) can be a 7.1 problem in some states. Editing or paraphrasing reviews to make them sound better is a 7.1 problem. Using stock photos or fake-looking testimonials labeled as real clients is a 7.1 problem. The standard is “would a reasonable consumer be misled” — and most consumer-protection-leaning bar interpretations read that standard expansively.
The most common 7.1 violation in review generation isn’t what the lawyer asked for. It’s what the lawyer did with the review afterward — selectively displaying, paraphrasing, or removing context.
Rule 7.2 — paying for reviews and the recommendation rule
Rule 7.2 contains the prohibition on a lawyer giving “anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.” There are exceptions — the lawyer can pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written communications permitted under 7.1 and 7.2, can pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or qualified lawyer referral service, and can pay for a law practice. The exceptions don’t include paying clients for reviews.
The question is whether a thank-you gift, a fee discount, a future-services discount, or a drawing entry constitutes “giving something of value for recommending.” Most state bars that have addressed the question have answered yes. Even small thank-you gifts ($10-25 gift cards, branded merchandise, a coffee shop card) are technically problematic in most jurisdictions. The reasoning — the gift is being given because of the review, the review is a recommendation, so the gift is given “for recommending.” It doesn’t matter that the gift is small or that the firm would have been happy with any review.
There’s a softer category — gifts given to clients at the conclusion of every matter, regardless of whether the client leaves a review. A firm that sends every closed client a thank-you note and a small gift as a matter of routine practice doesn’t trigger the 7.2 problem because the gift isn’t conditioned on the review. The firm just happens to ask for a review around the same time. The bar generally accepts this framing as long as the gift is genuinely unconditional. The moment the gift is conditioned on or visibly linked to the review — “leave us a Google review and we’ll send you a $25 gift card” — the firm is in 7.2 territory.
The FTC overlay — separate from bar rules, the Federal Trade Commission has rules against undisclosed incentivized reviews. If a lawyer gives a client anything of value in exchange for a review, the review must disclose the incentive. This applies regardless of whether the bar rule prohibits the practice. So even in a jurisdiction where the bar might permit small gifts in exchange for reviews (rare), the FTC would require the review itself to disclose the gift — which the lawyer doesn’t control and the reviewer typically doesn’t do. The combination of 7.2 and FTC means — don’t offer anything for reviews. Period. The risk is asymmetric.
Rule 7.3 — the solicitation rule and why it usually doesn’t apply to review asks
Rule 7.3 is the in-person solicitation rule. The classic application — a lawyer can’t show up at a hospital and pitch their services to an accident victim. The rule prohibits real-time, in-person solicitation of legal services from prospective clients in certain circumstances. It’s the rule that drives the “ambulance chasing” prohibition.
The reason 7.3 typically doesn’t apply to review asks — the rule covers solicitation of legal services from prospective clients. A closed-matter client is not a prospective client, and the request is not for legal services, it’s for a review of services already rendered. The structural mismatch means most state bars have not interpreted 7.3 as prohibiting in-person review asks from current or former clients. The Phoenix family lawyer who asks her client at the signing meeting “would you mind leaving us a Google review when you get home” is not violating 7.3.
The edge cases where 7.3 might come up — asking for a review during the original consultation (before representation) creates some risk because the relationship is in the prospective-client category. Asking a third party (a client’s family member who isn’t themselves a client) to leave a review might create some risk depending on the relationship. Asking former opposing parties or counsel to leave a review is its own separate problem. The safe practice — ask current and former clients only, after representation has ended or is well-established, in the context of routine post-matter communication.
The 2018 ABA amendments to Rule 7.3 narrowed the rule significantly — many forms of communication that would have been “solicitation” under the prior version are now expressly permitted. The amendments haven’t been adopted everywhere. If your state still has the pre-2018 version of 7.3, the rule is broader. If your state has adopted the post-2018 version, the rule is narrower. Check.
What you can ask for, plainly stated
You can ask a current or former client to leave a review on Google, Yelp, Avvo, or any other platform. The ask should be neutral — not steering content, not promising or implying specific praise. The ask can be made in person, by phone, by text, by email, by physical card. The ask can be repeated reasonably (one ask plus one follow-up reminder is fine in most jurisdictions; aggressive nagging crosses into harassment).
You can provide the review link. You can provide a QR code. You can include the link in routine post-matter communications. You can mention reviews in the engagement letter (“at the conclusion of the matter we may ask you to share your experience publicly — entirely optional”). You can train staff to make the ask consistently.
You can respond to the resulting reviews — within the constraints of Rule 1.6 (confidentiality, covered in responding to bad reviews for lawyers). You can thank reviewers publicly. You can engage briefly with positive reviews. You can use the template response on negative reviews.
What you can’t ask for
You can’t ask for a five-star review. You can’t ask the client to make specific claims about the firm, the case, or the outcome. You can’t offer anything of value (cash, gift cards, fee discounts, future-services discounts, drawing entries, branded merchandise that wouldn’t have been given anyway) in exchange for a review. You can’t use a review-gating service that filters positive feedback to public platforms and negative feedback to a private channel. You can’t ask the client to copy specific language from a template you provide.
You can’t ask non-clients to leave reviews — fellow lawyers who haven’t been clients, friends and family members of the lawyer, employees of the firm, paid review writers from offshore services. The reviews from non-clients are usually a 7.1 violation (misleading because they purport to come from clients when they don’t) and may be a 7.2 violation if the reviewer is being compensated.
You can’t write the review yourself and post it under a client’s name (yes, firms have actually done this — and gotten suspended for it). You can’t ask staff or family members to log into Google under the client’s account to post the review. You can’t pay an SEO vendor who offers “guaranteed reviews” because those reviews almost always come from non-clients or paid services that violate platform terms.
Thank-you gifts and their legal status by state
The narrow question — can a firm send a small thank-you gift to clients who leave reviews? Most states say no. A handful of states have informal opinions suggesting de minimis gifts might be acceptable if not specifically conditioned on the review. The safe answer in every state — don’t condition gifts on reviews.
What works if the firm wants to express thanks — send a thank-you to every client at the conclusion of every matter, regardless of whether they leave a review. A handwritten note, a small token (a book, a branded item, a charitable donation in the client’s name) — given unconditionally, given to every closed client, given as a routine part of practice. The thank-you is then unrelated to reviews. If the client also happens to leave a review, the review is unincentivized.
What doesn’t work — a thank-you note that mentions reviews, even softly. “Thanks for trusting us with your case! If you have a moment, we’d love it if you left us a Google review — and we’ve enclosed a small token of our appreciation” — the enclosure is now linked to the review request and the firm is in 7.2 territory.
Florida and Texas — particularly conservative on this question. Both state bars have published guidance treating even small thank-you gifts as problematic when paired with review requests. New York — similarly strict. California — mixed; the State Bar has not issued definitive guidance but the consensus interpretation is to avoid the issue entirely.
The “in-person solicitation” question — what 7.3 means for review asks
I covered the structural answer above — 7.3 generally doesn’t apply because the rule covers solicitation of legal services from prospective clients, and a closing-meeting review ask is neither. But the question keeps coming up because firms hear “no in-person solicitation” and assume it means they can’t ask in person.
What firms can do in person — ask current and former clients for reviews at the conclusion of a matter, at the signing meeting, during a routine post-matter check-in call, or in any other context where the client is already a client and the ask is for a review of past services rather than future engagement. This is the most effective channel for review generation (see Google review strategy for law firms) and it’s permitted in essentially every jurisdiction.
What firms can’t do — solicit reviews from prospective clients (during initial consultations before retention) in a way that suggests the review is conditional on or related to future representation. The cleaner approach is to make all review asks post-engagement only.
State-by-state notes
The major variation points by state.
Florida. Some of the strictest legal advertising rules in the country. The Florida Bar has issued multiple ethics opinions on online marketing and reviews. Specific points — testimonials must include disclaimers; specialty claims are heavily restricted; the bar has been aggressive about discipline for online advertising violations. Florida firms should be conservative in everything from review asks to displaying testimonials.
Texas. Also strict. The State Bar of Texas has historically enforced advertising rules aggressively. Texas requires lawyer advertising to be filed with the bar for review in some cases. Review-related communications are scrutinized for misleading claims. Texas firms should pay close attention to specific language.
New York. Specific rules on testimonials — paid testimonials must be disclosed, dramatizations or fictional clients are prohibited, and there are restrictions on case-results-as-testimonials. The interaction between New York’s testimonial rules and Google reviews has been the subject of multiple bar opinions worth reading if you practice there.
California. Operates under both the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Business and Professions Code. The substantive result on reviews is similar to the ABA framework but the rule citations are different. California also has consumer-protection statutes that overlay the bar rules.
For any state I haven’t named — the safe approach is to assume the ABA Model Rules apply, read your state’s bar website for any specific opinions on online reviews or testimonials, and consult your malpractice carrier or state bar ethics hotline for specific questions.
Arizona — the home market
Arizona has adopted the ABA Model Rules with some modifications. The Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct generally track the ABA framework on Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. The State Bar of Arizona has been less aggressive than Florida or Texas about disciplining lawyers for online marketing issues but the underlying rules are similar.
Specific Arizona points — the state has adopted a version of the post-2018 ABA amendments to Rule 7.3, narrowing the solicitation rule. The state requires specific disclaimers on past-results claims in advertising. Arizona’s interpretation of Rule 7.1 has been consistent with the broader trend — vague superlatives (“best”, “top”) are problematic; specific verifiable claims are safe. The Arizona Bar’s ethics committee has been generally available for informal guidance on specific marketing questions, which is worth using if you’re contemplating an unusual review-related practice.
For Arizona firms — the practical implications match the broader framework. Ask current and former clients for reviews. Use neutral language. Don’t offer incentives. Don’t gate. Respond to reviews carefully under Rule 1.6 constraints. Maintain a steady drip of new reviews. The compliance work isn’t onerous for firms that read the rules and stick to the safe practices.
A note on disclaimers
Many state bars require specific disclaimers on certain types of communications. The most common — disclaimers on case results (“Past results do not guarantee future outcomes”), disclaimers on testimonials in certain states (“This testimonial does not constitute a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of your matter”), disclaimers on lawyer specialization claims (“Not certified as a specialist by [state bar certification organization]”).
For Google reviews themselves, the firm doesn’t control the disclaimer (the platform format is fixed). But for testimonials or quotes from reviews used on the firm’s own website, the firm should add the relevant disclaimers. The disclaimer doesn’t need to be heavy-handed but it does need to be present and reasonably visible. See case result disclaimers and reviews vs testimonials on your site for the deeper treatment.
The compliance map, summarized
The safe-practice version of review generation in any jurisdiction — ask current and former clients only, post-engagement or at matter close. Use neutral language that doesn’t steer content. Provide the review link or QR code. Don’t offer anything of value in exchange. Don’t gate reviews. Don’t write the reviews yourself. Don’t ask non-clients. Don’t display reviews on your own site without the appropriate disclaimers. Respond to reviews carefully under Rule 1.6 — see responding to bad reviews for lawyers.
If a firm sticks to those practices, it’s compliant essentially everywhere. The aggressive review-generation tactics that vendors sometimes pitch — review-gating funnels, incentive programs, “guaranteed reviews” services, AI-written reviews under client names — are all either flat-out violations or close enough to violations that the risk-reward doesn’t work. The honest review program produces enough volume for almost any firm. The shortcuts produce a few extra reviews and a bar complaint.
The compliance framework isn’t a constraint. It’s a filter. Everything it disallows is exactly the kind of tactic that wouldn’t work long term anyway — fake reviews, gated reviews, incentivized reviews. The honest review program is also the only one that scales.
Adjacent topics
For the practical generation strategy see Google review strategy for law firms. For the response side see responding to bad reviews for lawyers. For the platform-by-platform breakdown see managing reviews across platforms. For the schema and rich results question see review schema and rich results. For the broader trust-signal framework see E-E-A-T signals for law firm pages.
For how reviews fit into law firm SEO and conversion broadly see the legal SEO authority page, the local SEO guide, and our approach.
If you want a second set of eyes
The free audit I offer includes a compliance read of your existing review-related communications — the ask emails, the website testimonial section, the response patterns, the incentive practices if any. If there’s anything that looks like a 7.1, 7.2, or 7.3 risk under your state’s rules, I’ll flag it. Not as legal advice — as a marketing audit calling out things that, in my experience reviewing firms, tend to draw bar attention. No deck. No upsell.
— The owner, PHX Search Co.