At a Glance

• All communications about a lawyer’s services must be truthful and not misleading.
• Washington permits solicitation by any means, subject to protections against misleading, coercive, unwanted or exploitative contact.
• RPC 7.1 and 7.3 do not prescribe a universal advertising label, responsible-lawyer contact line or advertisement filing process.
• Payments for recommendations are restricted. Advertising, qualifying nonprofit referrals and other express exceptions have different conditions.
• Certification claims must identify the certifying organization. Firm names and online identities must accurately describe the practice.

RPC 7.1; RPC 7.3

Read source: RPC 7.1 · RPC 7.3

Who Regulates

The Washington Supreme Court adopts the Rules of Professional Conduct and has exclusive responsibility for the lawyer discipline system. Under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct, it delegates functions to the Washington State Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Disciplinary Board and hearing officers. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel receives, reviews and may investigate grievances.

Court rules and statutes are controlling authorities. The court’s comments explain how the rules apply. WSBA advisory opinions and educational materials are guidance, not amendments to the rules.

WSBA’s description of the discipline system

Read source: WSBA’s description of the discipline system

What Counts as Advertising

RPC 7.1 governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, whatever medium the lawyer uses. Websites, advertisements, biographies, videos, directory listings and social posts must be evaluated for both express claims and their overall impression. A statement can be literally true and still misleading because it omits a material fact or invites a conclusion without a reasonable factual basis.

Solicitation is narrower. RPC 7.3 comment [1] describes targeted communications initiated by or for a lawyer, directed to a specific person and offering, or reasonably understood to offer, legal services. General-public advertising, responses to requests for information and automatically generated search responses typically fall outside that definition. They still must comply with RPC 7.1.

RCW 9.04.050 prohibits false, deceptive or misleading commercial advertising when the advertiser knows the facts that make the advertising false, deceptive or misleading. Compliance with the professional rules is not a substitute for checking applicable statutes.

RPC 7.1 and comments [1]–[3]; RPC 7.3 comment [1]; RCW 9.04.050

Read source: RPC 7.1 and comments [1]–[3] · RPC 7.3 comment [1] · RCW 9.04.050

Required Disclosures

The current advertising provisions do not impose a standard “Advertising Material” label or a universal name-and-office-address line. RPC 7.2 is reserved, and RPC 7.1 and 7.3 do not contain those requirements. That does not excuse an omission that makes a particular communication misleading.

Specific circumstances require more information:

• A certification communication must identify the certifying organization under RPC 7.1 comment [8].
• A multijurisdictional firm should identify relevant licensing limitations when listing lawyers or limited license legal technicians, or LLLTs, as practicing in a particular office.
• A firm marketing an LLLT’s services must accurately communicate the limited license and avoid suggesting broader practice authority.
• A reciprocal referral arrangement must be nonexclusive, and the client must be informed of its existence and nature.

These are different obligations, not a single disclaimer that can be pasted into every advertisement.

RPC 7.1 comments [8]–[9], [14]; RPC 7.3(b)(4)

Read source: RPC 7.1 comments [8]–[9], [14] · RPC 7.3(b)(4)

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

RPC 7.1, RPC 7.3 and the reserved entries for RPC 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 establish no general requirement to file advertisements, obtain advance approval or preserve all advertisements for a fixed period. This conclusion is limited to those advertising provisions.

As a practical compliance measure, retain the final copy, publication dates, supporting evidence for claims, client permissions and the terms of marketing or referral arrangements. Preserve records of consent and requests to stop contact where the campaign requires them. Those recommendations should not be described as a fixed retention period mandated by the advertising rules.

RPC 7.1; RPC 7.3; reserved RPC 7.2

Read source: RPC 7.1 · RPC 7.3 · reserved RPC 7.2

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

A truthful verdict or settlement claim may mislead if it creates an unjustified expectation that other clients will obtain the same result without regard to their circumstances. Unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can also mislead. RPC 7.1 comment [3] explains that appropriate qualifications may help; it does not provide a disclaimer that automatically clears every result claim.

Testimonials adopted or republished by the firm remain subject to the same truthfulness standard. Payment requires a separate check. Under RPC 7.3, endorsing or vouching for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character or other professional qualities can constitute a recommendation. A disclosure that an endorsement was paid does not itself make the payment permissible.

Client confidentiality is another independent requirement. RPC 1.6 generally requires informed consent unless disclosure is otherwise authorized or required by the rules. It covers information relating to representation whatever its source. Removing a name is insufficient if the remaining details could identify the client or matter. Former-client disclosure duties continue under RPC 1.9(c)(2).

RPC 7.1 comments [2]–[3]; RPC 7.3(b) and comment [14]; RPC 1.6(a), comments [3]–[4]; RPC 1.9(c)

Read source: RPC 7.1 comments [2]–[3] · RPC 7.3(b) and comment [14] · RPC 1.6(a), comments [3]–[4] · RPC 1.9(c)

Specialization & Certification

RPC 7.1 comment [8] generally permits truthful statements that a lawyer is a specialist, practices a specialty or specializes in a field. Those descriptions remain subject to the rule against false or misleading communications.

Certification is more specific. The comment permits a certified-specialist claim when certification comes from an organization approved by an appropriate state authority, accredited by the ABA, or accredited by another organization approved by the state authority to accredit lawyer-specialist certifiers. The communication must name the certifying organization.

Verify the actual credential and its current status. Do not turn a directory category, membership or practice-area preference into a certification claim. Washington’s reserved RPC 7.4 is not a separate current certification rule.

RPC 7.1 comment [8]; RPC 7.4

Read source: RPC 7.1 comment [8] · RPC 7.4

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

Trade names, distinctive website addresses and comparable designations are permitted if they are not misleading. A geographic name suggesting a public legal-aid office may need clarification that the firm is private. Names of deceased members can be used where there is a continuing succession in the firm’s identity.

Actual relationships matter. Lawyers who merely share offices cannot present themselves as one firm. The Washington comments also address separate letterheads, cards, pleading papers and signatures when lawyers or LLLTs lack a qualifying firm or of-counsel relationship. Names of people unconnected with the firm or a predecessor cannot be used to create a misleading association.

A firm may include a member LLLT’s name if the designation otherwise complies. For multijurisdictional offices, identify relevant licensing limitations. Apply the same analysis to domains, social profiles and directory listings.

RPC 7.1 comments [10]–[14]; reserved RPC 7.5

Read source: RPC 7.1 comments [10]–[14] · reserved RPC 7.5

Solicitation & Direct Contact

Washington does not impose the Model Rule’s general ban on financially motivated live solicitation. RPC 7.3(a) permits solicitation unless it is false or misleading; the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the recipient cannot exercise reasonable judgment because of their physical, emotional or mental condition; the recipient has asked not to be solicited; or the contact involves coercion, duress or harassment.

The comments identify circumstances that can make contact improper, including repeated or badly timed calls, approaches to accident victims or families during medical distress, and approaches to vulnerable people facing incarceration. The restrictions extend to employees, agents and others acting for the lawyer. A vendor does not provide a way around them.

Insurance-related referrals require a separate statutory analysis. RCW 48.30A.015 prohibits specified knowing payments for referring insurance claimants to service providers and providing services knowing a prohibited referral occurred. The definitions include preparing, processing, presenting or negotiating an insurance claim. RCW 48.30A.020 supplies defenses, including conduct authorized by the professional rules and specified advertising arrangements. Check the exact definitions and defense requirements rather than treating every purchased injury lead as lawful or unlawful.

RCW 9.12.010 separately addresses false suits intended to distress or harass and papers falsely resembling judicial process. A marketing piece should not masquerade as a court document.

RPC 7.3(a), comments [10]–[12]; RCW 48.30A.010; RCW 48.30A.015; RCW 48.30A.020; RCW 9.12.010

Read source: RPC 7.3(a), comments [10]–[12] · RCW 48.30A.010 · RCW 48.30A.015 · RCW 48.30A.020 · RCW 9.12.010

Channel-Specific Notes

RPC 7.3(b) restricts giving value to someone outside the firm’s employees and lawyers for recommending or securing work. Its exceptions include reasonable advertising costs, qualifying legal-service plans and nonprofit referral services, practice purchases, disclosed nonexclusive reciprocal referrals and nominal gifts not intended or reasonably expected as compensation.

The 2025 amendment expressly permits fee sharing with qualifying nonprofit referral services. Comment [15] explains that a referred client should not pay more in total than without the referral service. These conditions do not authorize percentage payments to every commercial lead platform.

Comment [14] permits paid lead generation where the generator does not recommend the lawyer, the payment complies with fee-division and independence requirements, and the communications comply with RPC 7.1. A service must not imply that its recommendation is unpaid or that it analyzed a person’s legal problem to select the lawyer. Review the landing page, matching claims, intake script and payment terms together. Firms must also appropriately supervise outside marketing providers.

Electronic outreach has separate statutory limits. RCW 19.190.020 addresses misleading email origin information and false or misleading subject lines, including the statute’s knowledge standard. RCW 19.190.060–.070 restrict commercial texts to covered Washington numbers and include an exception for clear, affirmative advance consent. Permission under RPC 7.3 is not permission to ignore these statutes or applicable federal communication laws.

RPC 7.3(b), comments [14]–[16]; RPC 5.3; RPC 5.4; Chapter 19.190 RCW

Read source: RPC 7.3(b), comments [14]–[16] · RPC 5.3 · RPC 5.4 · Chapter 19.190 RCW

Recent Changes & Scope

Sources checked November 11, 2026; RCW 9.04.050 wording rechecked November 12, 2026. The current RPC 7.3 and RPC 5.4 publications incorporate the nonprofit-referral changes effective April 29, 2025. The court’s order list through its November 4, 2026 conference and current proposed-rule page disclosed no later change to RPC 7.1 or 7.3 in this bounded review.

Commercial-email legislation changed in 2026. Chapter 135 took effect June 11, 2026 and amended RCW 19.190.020 and .040, with a provision governing causes of action commenced on or after that effective date. Use the current statute rather than an older marketing checklist.

This guide does not resolve campaign-specific issues under federal communications law, privacy law, public-record access rules or every potentially applicable statute. Recheck later orders, legislation and the facts of the proposed campaign before launch.

Court orders; current proposals; 2026 chapter 135

Read source: Court orders · current proposals · 2026 chapter 135

Official Sources

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

1. RPC 7.1 and Washington commentsOfficial source · Checked November 11, 2026
2. RPC 7.3 and Washington commentsOfficial source · Checked November 11, 2026
3. Reserved RPC 7.2, RPC 7.4 and RPC 7.5.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
4. RPC 1.6, RPC 1.9, RPC 5.3 and RPC 5.4.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
5. Order 25700-A-1628, adopting the 2025 nonprofit-referral amendments.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
6. RCW 9.04.050 and RCW 9.12.010.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
7. RCW 48.30A.010, .015 and .020.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
8. Chapter 19.190 RCW and 2026 chapter 135.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
9. WSBA discipline-system overview, official explanatory guidance.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026
10. Court rule-order list and current proposed rules.Official source · Checked November 11, 2026