At a glance

Utah keeps its advertising standards in one rule, Rule 7.1, numbered Rule 3-7.1 in the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice (previously UCJA Rule 13-7.1). Rules 7.2 through 7.5 were repealed in 2020 and those numbers are reserved. The 2020 rewrite eliminated the former ban on in-person solicitation in old Rule 7.3; it did not remove every limit on solicitation. Rule 7.1(b) prohibits coercion, duress and harassment, and Rule 7.1(c) prohibits direct contact about a disaster, personal injury or wrongful death unless more than 30 days have passed or another exception applies. Since November 1, 2026, Rule 5.4(c) prohibits referral fees.

Rule 3-7.1(a)–(c) and comment [12] (differences from the ABA Model Rule); Rule 3-5.4(c); approved-amendments notice of August 13, 2020

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice: rules index · Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendments · Read Rule 5.4

Who regulates

The Utah Supreme Court adopts these rules. The Rules of Professional Conduct are Chapter 3 of its Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, and amendments take effect by court order. Lawyer discipline falls under Chapter 1, Article 5 (“Lawyer Discipline, Disability, and Sanctions”), which includes Rules 1-520 to 1-524 on the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and OPC counsel. The text of the discipline rules has not been reviewed for this guide.

Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Chapters 1 and 3

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice: rules index · Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendments

What counts as advertising

All communications about legal services must be truthful and not misleading, regardless of medium. Utah does not define “advertisement”; Rule 7.1 reaches any communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. Comment [2] explains that a truthful statement can still mislead if it leaves out a needed fact or invites an unsupported conclusion. Comment [3] lists information a lawyer may publish, including name, contact details, website, services, the basis for fees (including prices and payment and credit arrangements), courts where the lawyer practices, and actors or dramatizations, as long as nothing is false or misleading. Comment [7] treats firm names, letterhead and professional designations as communications and allows a distinctive website address or social media username that is not misleading.

Rule 3-7.1(a), comments [1]–[3] and [7]

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1

Required disclosures

Rule 7.1 and its comments set no disclosure, label or disclaimer that every Utah advertisement must carry. Disclosures come up in these situations. A claim to be certified must name the objective certifying entity (comment [5]). A trade name with a place name, such as “Springfield Legal Clinic,” may need an express statement that the firm is not a public legal aid organization (comment [7]). Qualifying language or a disclaimer may keep a results claim from being misleading (comment [4]). Utah State Bar Ethics Opinion 22-04 (April 11, 2022), an ethics opinion rather than a court rule, says a billboard or mailer in Utah from an out-of-state firm with no Utah-licensed lawyer is materially misleading unless it discloses where the firm’s lawyers are licensed.

Rule 3-7.1 comments [4], [5] and [7]; Utah State Bar Ethics Opinion 22-04

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah State Bar Ethics Opinion 22-04

Paid lawyer-referral consultants must check Title 13, Chapter 68. For covered consultant advertising, section 13-68-303 requires a clear, conspicuous statement that the consultant is not an attorney. A lawyer licensed elsewhere but not in Utah uses the specified out-of-state-license disclosure instead. These targeted requirements are not a blanket disclaimer for all Utah lawyer advertising. SB 38 revised the chapter effective May 6, 2026.

Read source: Utah SB 38, sections 145 and 151 (enrolled 2026)

Scope: section 13-68-201(2), as amended by SB 38, generally excludes attorneys except the advertising provisions in section 13-68-303(3), (4) and (5). The advertising provisions address lawyer-referral services, not all legal-services advertising.

Source check November 10, 2026: enrolled SB 38, sections 145 and 151, including the operative advertising disclosures and attorney exception, read directly. The Division of Consumer Protection notice confirms the May 6, 2026 effective date. Foreign-language advertisements must also satisfy section 13-68-303(6). Deleted bracketed bill text is not an operative requirement.

Filing, review & recordkeeping

Rule 7.1, read in full, contains no filing, preapproval or advertisement-retention requirement. When the court approved the 2015 advertising amendments, its notice said that “submission of advertising to the Bar as mandated under the earlier proposed rules is no longer required.” That settles the question under Rule 7.1. It is not clearance under every Utah law: statutes that reach particular advertisers, such as the lawyer-referral-consultant chapter, are noted in Required disclosures and Changes & research gaps.

Rule 3-7.1 (read in full); approved-amendments notice of May 1, 2015

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendments

Results, testimonials & comparisons

Rule 7.1(a) prohibits a communication that contains a material misrepresentation or omits a fact needed to keep it from misleading, that is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved, or that contains a testimonial or endorsement that violates the rule. Rule 7.1 has no separate testimonial provision and requires no testimonial disclaimer: a testimonial or endorsement is judged by the same misleading-communication test. Comment [4] says an unsubstantiated comparison of a lawyer’s services or fees with other lawyers’ may be misleading if presented with such specificity that a reasonable person would conclude it can be substantiated. An appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language “may preclude” a finding that a statement misleads, so a disclaimer can help but does not cure every claim. Comment [3] allows actors or dramatizations portraying the lawyer, firm, client or events, if nothing is false or misleading.

Rule 3-7.1(a)(1)–(3), comments [3]–[4]

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1

Specialization & certification

Experience, training and education may support truthful specialization language. Certified-specialist claims require certification by an objective entity and identification of that entity.

Rule 3-7.1 comment [5]

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1

Firm, trade & domain names

Names, trade names, URLs and social handles must not mislead, imply false affiliations, or falsely imply a shared firm. Geographic clinic names may need clarification that they are not public legal aid.

On web addresses, comment [7] says a lawyer or firm may be designated by “a distinctive website address, social media username or comparable professional designation that is not misleading.” A trade name is allowed if it is not false or misleading, and a name is misleading if it implies a connection with a government agency, a deceased lawyer who was not a former member, a lawyer not associated with the firm, a nonlawyer, or a public or charitable legal services organization. Comment [9] cites Rule 1.0(d) for the definition of “firm”; since November 1, 2026 that definition is in Rule 1.0(e), and Rule 1.0(d) now defines “fee sharing.”

Rule 3-7.1 comments [7]–[10]; Rule 3-1.0(d)–(e)

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Read Rule 1.0

Solicitation & direct contact

Rule 7.1(b) prohibits coercion, duress or harassment. Rule 7.1(c) says a lawyer “shall not directly communicate with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment” if the communication concerns a disaster or an action for personal injury or wrongful death, unless (1) the disaster, injury or death occurred more than 30 days before the communication; (2) there is a familial, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer or law firm; or (3) the prospective client initiated the contact, or a third party with a familial or close personal relationship with the prospective client requested it. Comment [6] urges caution with “live” contact, such as in-person or face-to-face contact. The rule does not define “directly communicate,” so its text does not say whether targeted mail, texts or direct messages are covered.

Rule 3-7.1(b)–(c)(1)–(3)

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1

Effective November 1, 2026, Rule 5.4(c) states: “Referral fees are prohibited.” Rule 1.0 defines a referral fee as compensation for the sole purpose of referring a legal matter paid to any person who is not in the same firm. Rule 1.0 comment [9] says fees paid for generating consumer interest, “including lead generation service providers, online banner advertising, pay-per-click marketing, and similar marketing or advertising fees,” are not referral fees, and that small gifts of marginal or minimal value are not compensation. Rule 5.4(b) still lets a lawyer permit a person to recommend, retain or pay the lawyer. These distinctions do not automatically approve a particular arrangement. Fee sharing with another lawyer is permitted only as Rule 5.8 provides (Rule 5.4(d)). Fee sharing with a nonlawyer, and practicing with nonlawyer owners or managers, requires authorization under Utah Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 and the written notices that Rule 5.4(e)–(f) specify.

Rules 5.4(b)–(f), 1.0(q) and comment [9]; effective November 1, 2026. Read Rule 5.4 · Read Rule 1.0

Under Rule 5.8, lawyers sharing fees must wait until the fee is payable by the client, must not increase the total legal fee because of the arrangement, and must obtain the client’s agreement to the arrangement and each lawyer’s share, confirmed in writing. Each share must be reasonable. The rule considers the Rule 1.5 factors and anticipated work compared with work actually performed.

Read source: Utah Rule 5.8, effective November 1, 2026 · Read Rule 5.8

Channel-specific notes

The truthfulness rule applies across channels, including websites, social posts and paid campaigns (comment [1]). The rule’s text reaches channels in a few specific ways: website addresses and social media usernames must not be misleading (comment [7]); live contact, such as in-person or face-to-face contact, calls for caution (comment [6]); and comment [11] points to Rule 5.3 (duties regarding the conduct of nonlawyers) and Rule 8.4(a) (violating the rules through the acts of another). Utah State Bar Ethics Opinion 22-04 applies Rule 7.1 to billboards and mailers from out-of-state firms (see Required disclosures). Review the referral and lead-generation distinctions in the solicitation section before choosing a marketing arrangement.

Rule 3-7.1 comments [1], [6], [7] and [11]; Rules 1.0 comment [9], 5.4 and 5.8; Ethics Opinion 22-04

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1

Additional official sources: Utah Rule 1.0: terminology · Utah Rule 5.4: professional independence

Standing Order 15 provides an authorization framework for specified nontraditional legal-service arrangements, including qualifying nonlawyer ownership, technology or nonlawyer delivery of legal services, and requested rule waivers. Section 4.3.1 expressly places entities entirely owned and controlled by lawyers in good standing outside the Innovation Office’s scope when they use new advertising or solicitation approaches contemplated by the conduct rules; they remain under the traditional rules governing lawyer conduct and discipline. Authorization is limited to the approved service and conditions, not general approval of every marketing or fee arrangement.

Read source: Utah Standing Order 15, sections 4.3 and 5.1

Changes & research gaps

Utah’s 2020 reform, effective August 14, 2020, repealed Rules 7.1 through 7.5 and replaced them with a new Rule 7.1; the court’s notice says this “eliminates the prohibition against in-person solicitation found previously in Rule 7.3.” The current Rule 7.1 is effective May 1, 2024. A July 31, 2026 Supreme Court order adopted fee-sharing and referral-fee changes effective November 1, 2026. Those changes are reflected in the solicitation section; older comment-period notices describe their proposal stage. Comprehensive related statutes, privacy requirements and later proposals still need review.

Rule 7.1; approved-amendments notice of August 13, 2020; July 31, 2026 adoption order, effective November 1, 2026

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendments

Additional official sources: Utah Supreme Court adoption order

Utah’s separate kickback provision is now section 76-17-202, renumbered and amended effective May 7, 2025. It prohibits specified referral kickbacks and bribes connected to insurance or damages claims, with exceptions for uncompensated medical referrals, certain payments from client recoveries, and medical-provider marketing not intended to induce referral of a particular person. This is separate from Rule 5.4’s referral-fee ban. Classification of a particular payment requires the statutory definitions and facts; neither provision is blanket approval of a marketing arrangement.

Official sources

The official rule pages for Rules 3-7.1, 3-1.0, 3-5.4 and 3-5.8 were read for this check, with the rules index and the court’s approved-amendments archive. The enrolled 2026 SB 38 provisions on referral-consultant advertising and attorney scope, the agency’s effective-date notice, and section 76-17-202 were also read. These targeted checks do not cover every potentially applicable statute or a particular campaign. Ethics opinions are listed separately from rules.

Rule 3-7.1; approved amendments archive

Read source: Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 · Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendments

1. Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1official rule/statute · Checked November 10, 2026
2. Utah Court Rules approved: Rule 7.1 amendmentsofficial amendment notice · Checked November 10, 2026
3. Read Rule 5.4Additional official source referenced in this guide; see the relevant section for scope and limitations.
4. Read Rule 1.0Additional official source referenced in this guide; see the relevant section for scope and limitations.
5. Utah Supreme Court adoption orderAdditional official source referenced in this guide; see the relevant section for scope and limitations.
6. Utah SB 38, sections 145 and 151 (enrolled 2026)Additional official source referenced in this guide; see the relevant section for scope and limitations.
7. Utah Standing Order 15, sections 4.3 and 5.1Additional official source referenced in this guide; see the relevant section for scope and limitations.
8. Utah Rule 5.8, adopted textFull rule checked November 10, 2026.
9. Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-5.8official rule
10. Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice: rules indexofficial rules index (shows Rules 7.2 to 7.5 reserved)
11. Utah Division of Consumer Protection: 2026 lawyer-referral-consultant changesOfficial effective-date and implementation notice; checked November 10, 2026
12. Utah Code section 76-17-202Official renumbered kickback provision, effective May 7, 2025; checked November 10, 2026
13. Utah State Bar Ethics Opinion 22-04Utah State Bar ethics opinion, not a court rule