At a Glance

Rhode Island combines a general truthfulness standard with unusually specific disclosures, submission duties and records. Print, radio and television advertisements have a submission rule tied to first dissemination; targeted solicitations have a separate copy-and-retention requirement. Testimonials, simulated scenes, contingency-fee language, referral-heavy practices and certified-specialist claims each need their own review.

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Who Regulates

The Rhode Island Supreme Court adopts the Rules of Professional Conduct in Article V. The Disciplinary Board reviews alleged misconduct and may recommend sanctions to the Court; Disciplinary Counsel is the recipient identified in the advertising and solicitation submission provisions. A filing is not the same as approval. The Court’s ethics advisory materials provide additional interpretive guidance that should be checked for the particular campaign.

Official regulator: Rhode Island Disciplinary Board FAQs

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

What Counts as Advertising

Rule 7.1 governs communications about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services, not merely purchased placements. Rule 7.2 permits written, recorded and electronic advertising, including public media, subject to the other rules. Websites, profiles, promotional videos, directory entries and sponsored posts therefore need a truthfulness review even if their distribution differs from a newspaper or television advertisement.

A targeted message to someone known to need legal help in a particular matter adds Rule 7.3. Whether a communication is live or real-time, who initiated the exchange, the recipient’s relationship to the lawyer and the recipient’s circumstances can change the analysis. Do not classify every social message as ordinary general advertising.

Rules 7.2, 7.3

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Required Disclosures

Rule 7.2(d) requires the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for the communication. Under 7.2(e), advertising or written communications promising no fee without a recovery must conspicuously state if the client remains responsible for costs or expenses regardless of outcome.

Rule 7.2(f) addresses firms advertising particular practice fields but referring the majority of those cases to others. It supplies two alternative disclaimers, depending on whether the advertising firm maintains joint responsibility:

“Most cases of this type are not handled by this firm, but are referred to other attorneys.”

“While this firm maintains joint responsibility, most cases of this type are referred to other attorneys for principal responsibility.”

Use the applicable rule text rather than substituting a vague reference to a network.

Rules 7.1(b)–(c) separately require identification of testimonials, endorsements and simulations. Certified-specialist claims and certain targeted solicitations carry further disclosures discussed below. These are separate triggers, not one interchangeable footer.

Rules 7.1(b), 7.2(f)

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

Rule 7.2(b) requires a copy of each print advertisement, except yellow-page advertisements, a recording of each radio advertisement and a videotape of each television advertisement to be sent to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel before or within 48 hours of first dissemination. Another copy, including yellow-page advertisements, must be retained for three years after last dissemination, with a record of when and where it was used.

Rule 7.3(d) separately requires sending a copy of each covered solicitation to Disciplinary Counsel and keeping another for three years. Identical communications sent to at least two prospective clients may be documented with one copy and the recipients’ names and addresses, both submitted and retained. Do not silently import the 48-hour advertising deadline into this separate paragraph.

The Rule 7.2 commentary distinguishes these duties from mandatory pre-dissemination approval. Its media-specific text should not be expanded into an unsupported statement that every internet page must be filed, or that all digital advertisements are exempt. Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 2019-01 (June 18, 2019) addresses in-person outreach to local business owners and a leave-behind letter, not internet filing generally. It requires forwarding that advertising letter to Disciplinary Counsel under Rule 7.2. Opinion 2005-01 (February 24, 2005), discussing a lawyer’s profile on an online matching platform, expressly reminds the lawyer of Rule 7.2’s requirement to file copies with Disciplinary Counsel. That historical guidance weighs against assuming a blanket internet exemption, but does not resolve today’s submission method or every digital format; obtain current campaign-specific guidance.

Rules 7.2, 7.3(d)

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

Rule 7.1 prohibits material falsehoods and omissions that make the whole communication misleading. Its commentary explains why accurate past results can still imply unjustified expectations and why unsubstantiated comparisons can mislead. Context or qualification may help, but a disclaimer is not permission to make an unsupported promise.

Testimonials and endorsements must be identified as such. Payment must be disclosed when made, and a speaker who is not an actual client must be identified accordingly. For televised advertisements, these disclosures and identifications must appear continuously throughout the advertisement. Simulated or dramatized descriptions of the lawyer, colleagues, facilities or services must likewise be identified; televised simulations require continuous identification.

Awards and rankings should be presented with enough accurate context to avoid implying unsupported superiority or certification. Review the real selection process and any paid placement before deciding what the badge communicates. Client permission and confidentiality also need separate review; a result being public does not alone complete that analysis.

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Specialization & Certification

Rule 7.4 permits communicating practice fields and recognizes qualifying patent and admiralty designations. Certified-specialist claims require certification by an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the American Bar Association, clear identification of that organization, and this disclaimer in the same communication:

“The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law. The court does not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any particular field of practice.”

Rule 7.4 commentary [1] expressly permits saying a practice is limited to or concentrated in particular fields without paragraph (d)’s requirements. But it makes “specialist,” “specialty” and “specializes in” terminology subject to paragraph (d), as well as the false-or-misleading standard. Do not assume a noncertification specialty label avoids the certification-and-disclaimer conditions; review the exact wording and credential together.

Rule 7.4

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

Rule 7.5 prohibits misleading names, implied government or public legal-service connections, comparative names and names suggesting the ability to obtain results. Trade names and descriptive practice names can be used consistently with the rule; a geographic legal-clinic name may need clarification that it is not a public legal-aid agency.

Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 2026-02 (March 12, 2026) found “Contract House LLP” permissible for the two-lawyer transactional practice described. The name accurately identified its practice area and organizational structure without implying superior results. The Panel expressly did not decide compliance with Article II, Rule 10 or business regulations. This is a useful ethics example, not blanket clearance of a proposed entity name.

Identification of firm lawyers must show jurisdictional limitations for lawyers not licensed in Rhode Island. Partnership or organizational claims must reflect reality. “Group” and “and Associates” cannot imply additional lawyers when the supporting personnel are only nonlawyers.

The rule also restricts continued use of names after termination, during significant periods away in full-time public office, and for disbarred lawyers or lawyers suspended for at least six months. Deceased or retired names are addressed in the commentary’s continuity discussion. A rebrand or personnel change needs a fresh review across the website, directory listings and ad accounts.

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Solicitation & Direct Contact

Rule 7.3(a) restricts in-person, live telephone and real-time electronic solicitation motivated significantly by financial gain. Its exceptions cover lawyers, specified family/personal/prior professional relationships, and business, nonprofit or governmental organizations when the services sought relate to the organization.

Even otherwise permitted contact is barred in the listed circumstances, including an expressed wish not to be solicited, coercion or harassment, misleading claims, impaired ability to exercise reasonable judgment, or known representation in the particular matter. An exception to the live-contact restriction is not an exception to these protections.

Covered written, recorded or electronic solicitations to people known to need services in a particular matter require “Advertising Material” on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and end of recorded or electronic communications, subject to the listed recipient exceptions. The commentary discusses responses to requests and general announcements separately. Recordkeeping and submission remain distinct checks. The limited prepaid/group-plan provision is not permission for a lawyer-controlled solicitation company.

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Channel-Specific Notes

Apply the communication rules to content and intake together. A vendor’s script, live chat, retargeting sequence or paid recommendation may raise issues that are not visible in the landing page alone. Rule 7.2(c) distinguishes reasonable advertising costs and specified permitted payments from paying for recommendations. Reciprocal referrals must be nonexclusive, disclosed to the client and otherwise permissible. Rule 7.2(c)(2) specifically permits usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service; do not expand that exception to every commercial referral business.

Opinion 2005-01 approved the described flat-fee online arrangement where fees were not tied to legal revenue, the platform did not recommend specific lawyers or selectively route requests, and clients chose and retained counsel independently. It also distinguished responses to consumer-initiated requests from prohibited solicitation. Those facts matter: the dated opinion is not approval of every current platform, compensation model or intake process.

Rhode Island statutes make vendor classification particularly important. Section 11-27-8 prohibits acting as an attorney’s agent in soliciting or procuring law business and declares contracts secured through such an agent void, with a specified organizational exception. Section 11-27-10 restricts nonlawyers offering or advertising legal services or attorneys’ services, with the related exception. Section 11-27-3(b) describes a narrow qualifying nonprofit arrangement involving eligible fee awards or settlements, organizational purposes and written client consent. These provisions must be reconciled with the advertising rules for the actual vendor model; an “advertising” invoice label does not settle the question.

The June 17, 2026 Court order amended the technology-competence comment and adopted advisory generative-AI guidelines. The guidelines do not independently carry the force of law. Treat AI-generated promotional claims and visuals as material requiring lawyer review, not as a separate route around the existing rules.

Rules 7.2(c), 7.2(c)(2)

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Recent Changes & Scope

Source review date: November 12, 2026. The Court’s rules index links a compilation marked Revised October 2023. Read it alongside the June 17, 2026 order and check subsequent court action; the compilation alone does not establish the absence of later amendments.

Before publishing an advertisement, verify current digital-filing guidance, recheck subsequent court orders and applicable campaign-specific statutes, and obtain campaign-specific legal advice. Section 11-27-20 is currently marked repealed; an old opinion discussing divorce advertising under that section must not be presented as a current statutory prohibition.

Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Read source: Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142

Official Sources

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

1. Court rules indexOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
2. Article V, especially Rules 7.1–7.5 and commentary, printed pages 131–142Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
3. June 17, 2026 orderOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
4. Section 11-27-3Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
5. Section 11-27-8Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
6. Section 11-27-10Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
7. Section 11-27-20, repealedOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
8. Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 2019-01, business solicitation and advertising letterOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
9. Ethics opinion indexOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026