At a Glance

Research checked November 12, 2026. Educational information, not legal advice or approval of a campaign.

Arizona reorganized its lawyer-advertising rules effective January 1, 2021. ER 7.1 now contains the core accuracy, specialist-certification and responsible-party contact requirements. ER 7.3 addresses solicitation. The restructuring reserved ERs 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 rather than preserving their former standalone requirements.

Communications must identify at least one responsible lawyer or firm and provide contact information. Live person-to-person solicitation remains restricted, with specific exceptions. Paying for referrals is not categorically prohibited by the former ER 7.2 rule, but confidentiality, conflicts, fees and solicitation requirements still matter.

This guide summarizes the adopted Supreme Court orders and State Bar guidance cited below. It does not establish the complete current consolidated rules or account for every later amendment.

ER 7.1, 7.2, 7.3

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021

Who Regulates

The Arizona Supreme Court adopts the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct as Rule 42 of its rules. The State Bar publishes practice guidance and provides lawyer-regulation resources. The Court’s Ethics Advisory Committee provides formal ethics guidance; a marketing vendor’s assessment is not regulatory approval.

The relevant sources here are adopted court orders and the State Bar’s current advertising guidance, not a generic ABA Model Rules summary. The Court can adopt, delete or modify a provision differently from another state.

Identify the responsible lawyer before buying media or commissioning an agency. The Bar’s guidance specifically warns that lawyers remain responsible for staff and independent contractors complying with ethical obligations.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021; Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance; Ethics Advisory Committee resources

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021 · Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance · Ethics Advisory Committee resources

What Counts as Advertising

ER 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. The 2020 order deleted the rule’s former phrase about knowingly permitting communications on the lawyer’s behalf; that deleted wording should not be quoted as current ER 7.1. Material falsehoods and omissions are prohibited. The comment also addresses true statements that invite conclusions without reasonable factual support or misleadingly suggest that the reader must act when no action is required.

Review the complete presentation of websites, ads, directory listings, social accounts and videos. A claim in a headline or graphic can create an impression that quieter body copy does not correct.

ER 7.3 defines solicitation more narrowly: communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer or firm, directed to a specific person the lawyer knows or reasonably should know needs legal services in a particular matter, offering those services. Its comment distinguishes public advertising, responses to information requests and material automatically generated in response to electronic searches.

A public advertisement can therefore avoid the solicitation category while still needing full accuracy and contact-information review.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, attachment ERs 7.1 and 7.3

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021

Required Disclosures

ER 7.1(c) requires the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or firm responsible for the communication. Comment 9 recognizes a website address, telephone number, email address or physical office location as contact information. Do not import Oklahoma’s mandatory office-address wording into Arizona.

The 2020 order deleted the former ER 7.3 requirement to use “Advertising Material” in a specified font size and placement. It also removed the old requirements concerning mailed sample contracts and restricted delivery. Those deleted provisions should not appear in a current Arizona checklist as operative requirements.

Disclaimers may still be needed to prevent a misleading overall message. In particular, a statement of prior results should not imply a guaranteed result for a new client. A geographic trade name may need clarification if it suggests a public legal-aid organization.

Certification claims have separate requirements and must be reviewed against ER 7.1(b), its comments and Supreme Court Rule 44. Do not treat an ordinary practice-area claim as proof of certification.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, pp 3–5 and10; Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021 · Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

This section addresses the general advertising framework, not every specialized obligation that may apply to a campaign.

The State Bar’s current guidance says Bar review is not required before advertising. It identifies voluntary review through Practice 2.0. It also says there is no prescribed period for retaining copies of advertising, although retaining them is a good idea.

The adopted 2020 order removed the former requirement to forward copies of particular-matter solicitations to the Bar. Do not mistake that deleted provision for a current filing system.

As a practical safeguard, retain the final creative, landing page, distribution dates, audience, supporting evidence, vendor instructions and lawyer approval. Keep a record of changes to automated messages. These recommendations are an internal quality-control process, not a newly invented Arizona filing or retention rule.

A specialized statute, court order or another jurisdiction may impose additional requirements. This guide does not supply campaign-specific clearance under those sources.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, p10.

Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Read source: Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

ER 7.1 comment [2] explains that a truthful report of a past achievement may mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation of similar results without the specific factual and legal circumstances of the earlier client’s case. The 2020 order deleted the former separate sentence declaring promises or guarantees of a particular outcome misleading; review a claim against the surviving false-or-misleading standard rather than attributing that deleted sentence to the current comment.

Unsubstantiated comparisons can be misleading when phrased as though they can be proven. Review “best,” “highest” or superiority claims against the evidence and the overall impression rather than assuming a slogan is harmless.

Clear and conspicuous qualifications may prevent a misleading impression, but a disclaimer is not a license to make an unsupported claim. The headline, number, testimonial and qualification should tell a consistent story.

The State Bar’s guidance recommends managing expectations when listing past results. It also says the lawyer must obtain the former client’s consent where the result may identify that client or case, even when the case is a public record. Keep confidentiality approval separate from verification that the result itself is accurate.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, ER 7.1 comment 2; Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021 · Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Specialization & Certification

Certification requirements depend on the particular credential and certifying organization.

Arizona distinguishes describing a genuine concentration or specialty from claiming certified-specialist status. The ER 7.1 comments permit truthful statements about concentration or specialization based on experience, training or education, subject to the misleading-communication standard.

ER 7.1(b) says a lawyer may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless the lawyer complies with Supreme Court Rule 44 requirements. Rule 44 establishes the Board of Legal Specialization under Court supervision and provides for Court-approved standards.

Comment 8 added in the adopted 2020 order discusses certifications granted by organizations approved or accredited through specified authorities and requires identifying the certifying organization. The State Bar’s current specialization page expressly recognizes certification by its Board of Legal Specialization or by a national entity accredited by the State Bar of Arizona. That is more specific than reading its general advertising FAQ as an absolute BLS-only restriction. It is not permission to use any private badge: verify the actual certifier, accreditation and credential.

Administrative Order 2025-26 adopted revised BLS rules effective January 29, 2025. Section III(D) makes certification voluntary and individual: its benefits may not be attributed to the lawyer’s firm. Certification neither confines the lawyer to that field nor makes certification a prerequisite to practicing in the field. The rules also govern recertification and continued compliance, so an old certificate alone does not establish current status.

For a real campaign, confirm the credential, certifier, current Rule 44/BLS standards and permitted wording. Until that check is complete, identify the actual practice area without an unverified certification claim.

Administrative Order 2025-26; R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, p5; Rule 44 adoption order, effective January 1, 2017, official copy hosted by State Bar; Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Read source: Administrative Order 2025-26 · R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021 · Rule 44 adoption order, effective January 1, 2017, official copy hosted by State Bar · Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

This section reflects the adopted 2023 amendment.

Firm names, letterhead, website addresses and social usernames are communications about services and cannot mislead. The amended comment permits truthful trade names and names of current members, as well as deceased or retired members where there has been succession in the firm’s identity.

The phrase “or retired” was restored by Order R-22-0001 effective January 1, 2023. A version of the comment lacking those words is not the latest amendment verified here.

The comment excludes disbarred or disability-inactive lawyers’ names and warns against misleading associations with government, unrelated lawyers, nonlawyers or public legal-services organizations. A geographical name such as a legal clinic may require an explanation that the firm is not public legal aid.

Do not imply that separate lawyers practice in one firm when they do not. The Bar’s guidance also cautions against using “and Associates” without the actual associate attorneys that wording suggests.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, comments [4]–[5].

R-22-0001, firm-name comment, effective January 1, 2023; Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Read source: R-22-0001, firm-name comment, effective January 1, 2023 · Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance

Solicitation & Direct Contact

ER 7.3(b) prohibits live person-to-person solicitation for professional employment when a significant motive is pecuniary gain, unless the contact is with another lawyer; someone with a family, close personal or prior business or professional relationship with the lawyer or firm; or someone who routinely uses that type of legal service for business purposes.

The comment defines live person-to-person contact around real-time visual or auditory encounters without time for reflection. It distinguishes chat rooms, texts and other written communications that recipients can readily disregard. Written outreach still must satisfy the other rules and applicable communications law.

Even otherwise permitted solicitation must stop when the target has made known a desire not to be solicited and cannot involve coercion, duress or harassment. Paying another person to make an impermissible live approach does not solve the problem.

The adopted order removed the former categorical 30-day personal-injury/wrongful-death solicitation restriction. That deletion does not authorize harassment or inappropriate contact with vulnerable people.

ER 7.3 also preserves communications authorized by law or ordered by a court or tribunal and a limited exception for independent prepaid/group legal-service plans.

R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, pp 9–13

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021

Channel-Specific Notes

These channel notes address the cited ethical rules. Statutory requirements need separate campaign-specific review.

Search and websites: Verify practice areas, credentials, location claims and responsible-party contact information. A disclaimer identifying Arizona admission does not automatically authorize practice or advertising in every other state.

Social and video: Review captions, spoken words, graphics and calls to action together. Avoid a guaranteed-outcome impression. A general post and a targeted live follow-up are different communications.

Referrals and leads: The State Bar explains that the 2021 changes permit paying for referrals. Do not carry forward the deleted ER 7.2 prohibition as though it still controls. At the same time, the 2023 comment added to ER 1.5 distinguishes compensation solely for referral from sharing a client’s fee for joint work. It notes that the fee’s reasonableness and personal-interest conflicts may still govern.

Confidentiality matters even when thanking a referral source. The Bar warns that disclosing that a person consulted the lawyer requires informed consent, even if the person never retained the firm or the source already knows it supplied the contact information.

Agency and intake work: Train vendors not to make false claims or prohibited live solicitations. Review scripts and actual execution. Neither payment for a referral nor a contractor arrangement gives a nonlawyer permission to perform unauthorized legal work.

Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance; R-22-0022, ER 1.5 referral-compensation comment, effective January 1, 2023

Read source: Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidance · R-22-0022, ER 1.5 referral-compensation comment, effective January 1, 2023

Recent Changes & Scope

Order R-20-0030 was filed August 27, 2020 and became effective January 1, 2021. Although the PDF’s search title says “Proposed Order,” the document itself is the filed, signed adoption order. In its redline, deleted filing, labeling,30-day and referral provisions are not operative new requirements.

The 2022 orders restoring “or retired” in the firm-name comment and clarifying referral compensation became effective January 1, 2023 and are reflected here.

The current consolidated ER 7.1 was not independently verified. Adopted court orders and current State Bar guidance provide the foundation, but this guide does not establish the complete current consolidated text or account for all subsequent orders. A specialized statutory sweep also remains incomplete; no claim is made that Arizona has no additional advertising laws.

Credential-specific Rule 44/BLS application needs review before publishing a certification claim. Campaign-specific legal review is still needed.

ER 7.1

Read source: R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021

Official Sources

Read the official rules alongside other applicable law and obtain campaign-specific advice.

Arizona Supreme Court:

1. R-20-0030, advertising-rule restructuring, filed August 27, 2020, effective January 1, 2021Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
2. R-22-0001, firm-name comment, effective January 1, 2023Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
3. R-22-0022, ER 1.5 referral-compensation comment, effective January 1, 2023Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
4. Rule 44 adoption order, effective January 1, 2017, official copy hosted by State BarOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
5. Recent amendments indexOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026

State Bar of Arizona:

6. Advertising and solicitation best-practice guidanceOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
7. Legal specialization programOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026

Research date: November 12, 2026. Source dates are not guarantees against later amendments. This guide is not legal advice.