At a Glance

• Keep statements about legal services truthful and support factual comparisons.
• Include the name and contact information of a responsible lawyer or law firm.
• Check the certification requirements before saying a lawyer specializes or is a specialist.
• Treat live person-to-person solicitation differently from general advertising and written messages.
• The State Bar says a law-firm website does not need its review before launch. That is not approval of the website’s content.

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct

Read source: North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct

Who Regulates

The North Carolina State Bar publishes the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by its Council and approved by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Start with Rules 7.1 through 7.4 rather than assuming the ABA Model Rules apply unchanged.

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct

Read source: North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct

What Counts as Advertising

Rule 7.1 covers communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertising. Rule 7.2 allows communications through any medium. Websites, paid ads and professional profiles therefore need the same truthfulness review; the communication method does not excuse misleading content.

Rule 7.1, Rule 7.2(a)

Read source: Rule 7.1 · Rule 7.2(a)

Required Disclosures

Rule 7.2(d) requires the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for the communication. Comment 9 identifies a website, telephone number, email address or physical office location as forms of contact information.

Other disclosures depend on the content. Rule 7.1’s dramatization comment calls for a conspicuous explanation at the beginning and end when fictional situations are used. Testimonials and specialization claims have separate requirements discussed below. Do not treat one generic footer as resolving every disclosure issue.

Rules 7.2(d), comment 9, and 7.1 comment 10

Read source: Rule 7.1 · Rule 7.2(a)

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

The State Bar’s website guidance says there is no requirement for the Bar to review a website before launch. Ethics counsel will review questionable language or images on request, but not an entire website.

This statement concerns website review. The posted Rule 7.2 and its comments do not prescribe a fixed advertising-copy retention period. That bounded finding does not establish that every advertising format, referral arrangement or related legal obligation is exempt from filing or retention requirements. This guide does not provide a comprehensive statutory analysis. As an editorial safeguard, retain the final ad and the evidence supporting its claims; this recommendation is not a verified North Carolina retention period.

Review of Law Firm Websites

Read source: Review of Law Firm Websites

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

Rule 7.1 prohibits misleading communications, including unjustified expectations about results and comparisons that cannot be factually supported. A technically true statement can still mislead through missing context.

The Bar’s 2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 distinguishes testimonials about service from those about results. Service-focused testimonials may be used without a disclaimer under that opinion. Testimonials referring generally to results need an appropriate, effective disclaimer; the opinion prohibits specific dollar amounts in client testimonials. The disclaimer must be conspicuous and appear or be spoken at the beginning and end. A written testimonial’s disclaimer uses the same font size and color; an oral testimonial’s disclaimer uses the same volume and an easily understood conversational speed. For an embedded website video, the opinion permits a conspicuous written disclaimer directly above or below the link as an alternative to the in-video treatment. Read its television timing requirements before repurposing a testimonial.

The opinion uses older rule subsection references. Its reference to former Rule 7.1(b) concerns dramatizations, now addressed in current Rule 7.1 comment 10. The opinion remains on the State Bar’s adopted-opinion pages, without a withdrawal note found in the material reviewed. This is not a complete survey of later judicial or ethics treatment. Do not infer that its testimonial treatment is identical to the treatment of a firm-written case summary.

Awards require their own review. Under 2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 8, the lawyer must verify a bona fide award process using adequate, individualized inquiry and objective, verifiable, consistently applied selection factors. Payment cannot buy the award or inclusion, including through an advertising fee that is a condition of inclusion. Reasonable advertising costs after an award are treated differently.

An award advertisement must explain the inclusion standards or tell readers how to obtain them, state the relevant year or years, and describe inclusion rather than claiming the award’s superlative as an established fact about the lawyer. A disclaimer is required where the inclusion may create unjustified expectations. Recheck compliance on renewal. The opinion’s editor’s note identifies 2007 FEO 14 as withdrawn on October 25, 2019.

Client confidentiality is a separate check. Rule 1.6 protects information acquired during representation, regardless of its source, and even indirect disclosures that could identify protected information. A marketing team should not assume that publicly available case information can freely be reused. Confirm authorization or an applicable exception before including a client or matter in promotional content. Source: Rule 1.6 and comments 3–4.

Rule 7.1; 2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 1

Read source: 2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 · Rule 7.1

Specialization & Certification

Rule 7.2(c) restricts claims that a lawyer specializes or is a specialist. It requires certification by the North Carolina State Bar, an organization accredited by that Bar, or an ABA-accredited organization under procedures and criteria endorsed by that Bar. The communication must clearly identify the certifying organization.

Comment 8 permits truthful descriptions of practice areas without using specialization language, including a concentration or limitation of practice. Check the actual wording before turning an ordinary practice-area heading into a specialty claim.

Rule 7.2(c) and comments 7–8

Read source: Rule 7.2(a)

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

Rule 7.1’s comments allow nonmisleading trade names and online designations. They warn against implying government or charitable affiliation, or a relationship with people not associated with the firm. A solo practice should not imply multiple lawyers through an associates designation. Multi-jurisdiction firms must accurately identify licensing limitations. The State Bar’s forms guidance says trade-name registration with the Bar is no longer required and that trade/assumed names and d.b.a.s “can be filed” with the county Register of Deeds. That permissive wording should be distinguished from the July 2026 Council synopsis, which describes proposed amendments requiring local recording of trade names. The proposal is not proof that a new requirement has taken effect; other applicable filing duties still need review.

The posted 27 NCAC 1E .0201 requires State Bar registration for a firm maintaining offices in North Carolina and another jurisdiction, or filing for a North Carolina certificate of authority, subject to its exception when all attorneys associated with the firm and any firm in partnership with it are North Carolina-licensed. Its posted amendment history ends March 6, 2014. The later Council action described below must be checked before treating that page as the final current registration position.

Rule 7.1 comments 5–9

Read source: Rule 7.1

Solicitation & Direct Contact

Rule 7.3 defines solicitation as a lawyer-initiated communication directed to a specific person that offers, or can reasonably be understood to offer, legal services. It generally prohibits live person-to-person solicitation when financial gain is a significant motive, subject to exceptions for lawyers; specified family, close personal, prior business or professional relationships; and people who routinely use the offered services for business purposes.

The rule also prohibits solicitation after someone has expressed a wish not to be solicited, or when coercion, duress or harassment is involved. Its exceptions include law-authorized or tribunal-ordered communications and a separately conditioned prepaid-plan provision.

Comment 2 distinguishes live visual or auditory encounters from easily disregarded written communications such as texts. That distinction does not approve every text campaign or displace other laws.

A separate statute, G.S. 84-38, contains broad restrictions on soliciting legal business and compensation for placing claims, with a specified attorney-to-attorney fee-division exception. Its application alongside modern advertising rules and constitutional decisions is not resolved in this guide. Do not read Rule 7.3 as a standalone approval of a solicitation program.

Rule 7.3 and comments 1–3

Read source: Rule 7.3 and comments 1–3

Channel-Specific Notes

Rule 7.2 permits reasonable advertising costs, but paid recommendations are restricted. Its lead-generation comment conditions payments on the absence of a recommendation, compliance with fee-division and independence rules, and truthful communications.

Rule 7.4 separately covers intermediary organizations, including certain referral, matching and online marketing platforms. Participating lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance before and during participation. Requirements address professional judgment, solicitation, inclusion and payment disclosures, costs and ownership. A lawyer who discovers noncompliance must either withdraw from participation or seek to correct the noncompliance. If the organization fails to correct the noncompliance, the lawyer must withdraw. The platform’s own promise of compliance is not a substitute for these duties.

Rule 7.2(b), comments 2–6; Rule 7.4

Read source: Rule 7.4 · Rule 7.2(a)

Recent Changes & Scope

Source review: November 12, 2026. The registration proposal described below is distinct from the posted operative rule.

The State Bar’s July 2026 Council synopsis reports that the Council adopted entity-rule amendments on July 24 for transmission to the Supreme Court, under a heading stating that approval was pending. The listed provisions are 27 NCAC 1E .0102, .0103, .0104, .0106 and .0201. The synopsis describes local trade-name recording, online filings and registration of certain out-of-state firms with a virtual North Carolina presence, among other changes.

The separately posted proposed .0201 text adds a trigger for a firm that “has a systemic and continuous presence in North Carolina by virtual means.” It also restates the exception for a firm whose associated, affiliated and partner-firm attorneys are all North Carolina-licensed. Read this as proposed language, not as a verified operative amendment. The proposed .0201 page, checked November 12, 2026, expressly states “Rule Status: Pending Supreme Court Approval.” No final approval, effective date or operative amended text was established in this review; the proposal must not be presented as current law. This summary is not an exhaustive account of pending changes, statutory retention requirements, later opinion treatment or the constitutional and case-law treatment of G.S. 84-38.

Proposed Amendments, Proposed Opinions

Read source: Proposed Amendments · Proposed Opinions

Official Sources

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

1. North Carolina Rules of Professional ConductOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
2. Rule 7.1Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
3. Rule 7.2(a)Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
4. Review of Law Firm WebsitesOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
5. 2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 1Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
6. 2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 8Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
7. Rule 1.6 and comments 3–4Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
8. forms guidanceOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
9. 27 NCAC 1E .0201Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
10. Rule 7.3 and comments 1–3Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
11. G.S. 84-38Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
12. Rule 7.4Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
13. July 2026 Council synopsisOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
14. Proposed AmendmentsOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
15. Proposed OpinionsOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026

Use the current State Bar rule links and opinion links above. Current rule text, rule comments and ethics opinions have different roles; an older opinion’s subsection numbering should not be silently substituted for current rule numbering.