At a Glance

• Primary rules: Hawai‘i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) 7.1 through 7.5, with related confidentiality, supervision and professional-independence rules.
• Advertising must identify at least one individual lawyer responsible for its content.
• Targeted solicitations may require “Advertising Material” labeling. Personal-injury and wrongful-death outreach has a more-than-30-day waiting requirement.
• Certification claims require the certifying organization’s name and Hawaii’s specific explanatory statement.
• The advertising rules do not establish a general advertisement-filing program or a fixed advertising-retention period.
• Email solicitation requires particular caution because published disciplinary guidance is broader than the real-time-contact wording of Rule 7.3(a).

Rule 7.3(a)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Who Regulates

The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i adopts the professional-conduct rules. The Disciplinary Board oversees the disciplinary system, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigates and prosecutes allegations of lawyer misconduct. Hawaii’s disciplinary authority can extend to lawyers admitted elsewhere who provide or offer legal services in Hawaii. Supreme Court Rules, Rule 2; Office of Disciplinary Counsel; HRPC 8.5

Distinguish the rule text from other official materials. The HRPC compilation expressly describes the committee comments as interpretive assistance that is not binding on the courts. The Board’s ethics page describes its formal opinions as binding on Hawaii lawyers, while Supreme Court Rule 2.4(e)(7) and Disciplinary Board Rule 8(b) call the opinions advisory. Firms should take the published opinions seriously and obtain ethics advice when an opinion and the operative rule appear difficult to reconcile. Informal advice is not approval of an advertisement. Board ethics advice and opinions; Disciplinary Board Rules

Rule 2.4(e)(7)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

What Counts as Advertising

Rule 7.2 permits written, recorded and electronic advertising, including public media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3. Rule 7.1 reaches all communications about a lawyer’s services, not just paid campaigns. Firm websites, directory listings, social posts, videos, sponsorship messages and promotional biographies all need truthful, complete presentation.

Formal Opinion 41 specifically treats law-firm websites, website addresses, email addresses, banner advertisements and pop-up advertisements as advertising. A domain name or profile label can therefore create a misleading impression even when the body text is accurate. Formal Opinion 41

Publicly describing a practice is different from approaching a person known to need a lawyer for a particular matter. Moving a social-media conversation into a private sales message can change the analysis. Assess the audience, who initiated contact, the purpose of the communication and whether the exchange is real-time. HRPC 7.1–7.3 and comments

Rules 7.1, 7.3

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Required Disclosures

Rule 7.2(c) requires the name of at least one lawyer responsible for an advertising communication. Naming only the firm does not satisfy the rule’s individual-lawyer wording. The provision does not itself require an office address, although other rules prohibit misleading statements about offices and licensing.

For covered targeted solicitations, Rule 7.3(c) requires “Advertising Material” on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and end of a recorded or electronic communication. The rule excludes recipients with the relationships specified in Rule 7.3(a). Its commentary also distinguishes requested information and general announcements from covered solicitations.

Additional disclosures depend on the claim:

• A certification claim must identify the certifying organization and include the statement described below.
• Identification of lawyers in a multijurisdictional office must disclose applicable licensing limitations.
• A trade name may need a disclaimer if it misleadingly suggests a public legal-aid organization.
• Results or comparisons may need qualifications sufficient to avoid misleading readers. A disclaimer is not a cure for a false underlying statement.

Review disclosures in the actual placement. A qualification that is detached from the claim may fail to correct the overall impression. HRPC 7.1–7.5

Rules 7.3(a), 7.3(c)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

Rules 7.1 through 7.5 do not impose a general filing fee, advance advertising approval or a fixed period for retaining advertisements. That is a limited conclusion about these advertising rules, not an exemption from other document-retention or regulatory requirements.

As a practical control, retain the finished advertisement, versions of the landing page, the dates and places of use, claim substantiation, client permissions and the approving lawyer’s review. Keep the solicitation audience and timing records when a waiting period or relationship exception matters. These are recommended compliance records, not a Hawaii advertising-rule retention deadline.

A legal service plan presents a separate regulatory question. Rule 7.2 commentary refers to HRS Chapter 488, and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs describes a plan-approval process. Do not equate the absence of ordinary ad filing with permission to operate an unapproved plan. Current statutory requirements and exemptions must be checked for the proposed arrangement. HRPC 7.2; DCCA legal service plans

Rule 7.2

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

Rule 7.1 prohibits material misrepresentations and omissions, unjustified expectations about results, suggestions that results can be achieved through means violating the professional-conduct rules or other law, and comparisons that cannot be factually substantiated. These restrictions apply even when an advertisement accurately describes a real victory.

The commentary explains that past achievements can mislead when readers are invited to expect the same result without the factual and legal circumstances of the earlier case. Appropriate qualifications may help. Avoid presenting a selected settlement, verdict or client testimonial as a prediction for future clients.

Treat “best,” “leading,” superior-results statements and award badges as claims needing support. Explain the actual distinction and do not imply a competitive assessment that never occurred. A purchased placement should not be dressed up as an independent recommendation.

Confidentiality is a separate review. Before publishing a client’s identity, case details or testimonial, determine whether the disclosure is authorized under Rule 1.6, including consent after consultation where required. Rule 1.9(c) continues protections after the representation ends. Public availability of case information does not automatically make a marketing disclosure proper. HRPC 1.6, 1.9(c) and 7.1

Rules 1.6, 1.9(c)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Specialization & Certification

Rule 7.4 permits accurate statements about fields in which a lawyer does or does not practice. The commentary allows descriptions such as concentrating in, emphasizing or limiting a practice to an area. It also permits truthful specialist language, subject to Rule 7.1, but recognition or certification as a specialist requires the separate conditions governing that claim.

A statement that a named organization has certified the lawyer must not be false or misleading, must clearly name the organization, and must be accompanied by this statement:

“The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i grants Hawai‘i certification only to lawyers in good standing who have successfully completed a specialty program accredited by the American Bar Association.”

Supreme Court Rule 1.13 provides a separate petition process for a Hawaii Certificate of Specialization. Completion of an ABA-accredited program does not by itself mean that the court has issued the lawyer a Hawaii certificate. The court’s certificate has a five-year term and renewal requirements.

Rule 7.4 also recognizes the designated patent and admiralty descriptions for qualifying practitioners. Verify the actual credential before using a badge, biography claim or specialist designation. HRPC 7.4; Supreme Court Rule 1.13

Rules 1.13, 7.1, 7.4

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

Rule 7.5 permits a trade name if it is not misleading and does not suggest a government connection or a public or charitable legal-services organization. Lawyers must not imply that they practice together unless that is true. Shared offices alone do not create a firm.

A continuing firm may retain deceased or retired partners’ names. If none of the names in the firm name belongs to a current partner on Hawaii’s active-attorney list, at least one supervisor, manager, partner or shareholder must be on that active list. A public official’s name cannot remain in firm communications during a substantial period when that lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm.

Supreme Court Rule 6(b) also requires an appropriate business-organization designation, such as “A Law Corporation,” “A Limited Liability Law Company” or “A Limited Liability Law Partnership,” whenever applicable.

Formal Opinion 43 addresses “of counsel” and similar titles. The relationship must be continuing, close and regular, and the lawyer must be actively licensed. Communications must disclose the relevant jurisdictional limitations. As a practical review step, confirm that the title describes the real continuing, close and regular relationship rather than merely a referral arrangement. HRPC 7.5; Supreme Court Rule 6; Formal Opinion 43

Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Solicitation & Direct Contact

Rule 7.3(a) prohibits in-person, live-telephone and real-time electronic solicitation when a significant motive is the lawyer’s financial gain, unless the recipient has a family, close personal or prior professional relationship with the lawyer. Do not import broader exceptions from another state.

Even otherwise permitted contact is prohibited when the recipient has told the lawyer not to solicit, or when the communication involves coercion, duress or harassment. The comments warn that repeated attempts after an unanswered permissible letter can also create a problem.

Personal-injury and wrongful-death outreach has an additional restriction. Under Rule 7.3(e)(1), a communication concerning such an action involving the recipient or a relative cannot be sent unless the injury or death occurred more than 30 days earlier. Separately, paragraph (e)(2) prohibits solicitation when the lawyer knows or should know the person’s physical, emotional or mental condition makes reasonable judgment in hiring a lawyer unlikely. The text of paragraph (e) does not contain the relationship exception written into paragraph (a).

Email requires a careful reading of the official materials. Rule 7.3(a) says “real-time electronic contact,” and Rule 7.2 commentary recognizes lawful email. But Formal Opinion 41, still listed among the Board’s opinions in force, states that email solicitation of prospective clients is prohibited under Rule 7.3(a). Firms should not assume that asynchronous cold email is permitted merely because it is not live. Obtain a fact-specific ethics review before launching that outreach.

Rule 7.3(d) contains a narrow exception for independent prepaid or group plans soliciting memberships from people not known to need legal services in a particular covered matter. It is not permission to route a firm’s prohibited solicitation through a controlled intermediary. Separate telephone-marketing and other applicable laws also require review. HRPC 7.3; Formal Opinion 41

Rules 7.2, 7.3(a), 7.3(d), 7.3(e)(1)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Channel-Specific Notes

Use the same claims and disclosure review for a homepage, local listing, short video, social biography and paid advertisement. Check the message as a reader sees it, including the domain, photographs, titles and linked landing page.

Hawaii’s commentary specifically addresses former government officials. Words and images should make former or retired status clear; historical footage should be identified as historical. If removal from the earlier office involved misconduct, the commentary calls for disclosure when referring to that office. These are interpretive comments supporting the binding prohibition against misleading expectations.

Rule 7.2(b) generally prohibits giving value for recommendations, subject to its stated exceptions. Reasonable advertising costs are permitted. The rule separately allows usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or qualified legal assistance organization. Its percentage-fee provision is restricted to reasonable operating expenses and public-service activities, including pro bono services. Do not treat an ordinary commercial lead seller as automatically qualifying.

Review what a vendor actually does, not just whether its contract calls the charge a marketing fee. Rule 5.3 requires appropriate supervision of nonlawyer assistance. Rule 5.4 protects professional independence and limits nonlawyer fee sharing. Reciprocal-referral commentary requires a nonexclusive arrangement, disclosure to the client and preservation of independent judgment.

Formal Opinion 46 addresses the reverse payment problem: a lawyer acting as a client’s attorney cannot accept a fee from a nonlawyer product or service provider for referring that client. The opinion says client consent does not cure the arrangement.

Finally, an out-of-state lawyer working remotely from Hawaii should not assume physical presence permits a Hawaii office claim. Rule 5.5 commentary warns against Hawaii contact information or advertising that implies an unauthorized local practice. HRPC 5.3–5.5 and 7.1–7.3; Formal Opinion 46

Rules 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 7.2(b)

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Recent Changes & Scope

Last reviewed: November 12, 2026.

The Judiciary’s current rules index identifies the HRPC compilation as amended effective January 1, 2026. Consult the 2026 amendment index for updates to Rules 7.1 through 7.5; this summary does not establish that no proposal or later order exists.

Before launching a campaign, recheck the current rule compilation, amendment orders and Board opinions. Current legal-service-plan statutes, telephone-solicitation statutes and their exemptions require additional review for a campaign using those arrangements. The email-solicitation and formal-opinion-status issues discussed above should be resolved for the proposed facts rather than treated as blanket permission. Judiciary rules index; 2026 amendment orders

Rules 7.1, 7.5

Read source: Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

Official Sources

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

1. Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct: binding rule text, with separately identified committee comments.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
2. Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawaii: specialization, discipline and professional business organizations.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
3. Rules of the Disciplinary Board: formal-opinion procedure.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
4. Board ethics advice and opinions: official guidance and the current list of opinions in force.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
5. Formal Opinion 41, Formal Opinion 43 and Formal Opinion 46: electronic advertising, of-counsel designations and nonlawyer referral payments.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
6. DCCA legal service plans: official administrative guidance, not a substitute for current statutory text.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
7. Judiciary rules and amendment index: current compilations and updates.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026

This guide provides general information, not legal advice. Application depends on the lawyer, communication, audience and facts. Consult current official authorities and qualified ethics counsel before relying on a proposed campaign.