At a Glance

• Binding rules: Rules 7.1–7.5 govern misleading communications, advertising, solicitation, practice descriptions and firm names. Other duties, including confidentiality and supervision, also apply.
• Identification: Rule 7.2(c) requires the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for the content.
• Targeted solicitation: Rule 7.3(c) requires “Advertising Material” in specified places for communications to someone known to need legal services in a particular matter, subject to its recipient exceptions.
• Live contact: Rule 7.3(a) addresses in-person, live telephone and real-time electronic solicitation, including conduct by a lawyer’s agent, representative or employee.
• Certification: Rule 7.4(d) prohibits stating or implying certification as a specialist. Do not import another state’s certification exception.
• Additional statute: West Virginia Code Chapter 47, Article 28 regulates specified medication-related legal advertising and solicitation. It supplements professional discipline rather than replacing it.

Official professional-conduct rules; Article 28 definitions

Read source: Official professional-conduct rules · Article 28 definitions

Who Regulates

The Supreme Court of Appeals promulgates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel investigates and prosecutes violations; the Lawyer Disciplinary Board governs that office.

The Board also publishes Legal Ethics Opinions. Its website expressly distinguishes advisory guidance from binding court rules: the opinions do not bind the Supreme Court of Appeals, although opinions issued under disciplinary Rule 2.16 have a specified effect in later proceedings involving the requesting lawyer. Older opinions may discuss superseded rules. Read their dates and the current rule text together.

Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel; official opinions and status explanation

Read source: Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel · official opinions and status explanation

What Counts as Advertising

Rule 7.1 governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, whatever the medium. Rule 7.2 permits written, recorded and electronic advertising, including public media, subject to Rules 7.1 and 7.3. A website, search advertisement, directory profile, video or social post is not outside these duties merely because it appears online or receives no paid promotion.

Advertising and solicitation are not identical. Rule 7.3 comment 1 describes solicitation as a targeted, lawyer-initiated communication directed to a specific person offering legal services. General-public communications, responses to requests for information and communications automatically generated in response to Internet searches ordinarily do not fit that description. The classification depends on how the message actually reaches the person, not just the name of the platform.

Rules 7.1–7.3 and comments

Read source: Rules 7.1–7.3 and comments

Required Disclosures

Include the responsible lawyer or firm’s name and office address in communications covered by Rule 7.2. A telephone number or website URL is not a substitute for the address the rule actually requires.

For a written, recorded or electronic solicitation to someone known to need legal services in a particular matter, Rule 7.3(c) calls for “Advertising Material” on the outside envelope and at the beginning and end of the recorded or electronic communication, as applicable. The rule excepts recipients who are lawyers or have the specified family, close personal or prior professional relationship. Comment 8 separately explains responses to requests for information and general announcements. Do not impose the targeted-solicitation label on every ordinary website page, or treat a label as permission for otherwise prohibited contact.

Official guidance on fee claims: L.E.I. 96-01, approved April 25, 1996, addresses “no recovery, no fee” and similar language. It says the advertisement must disclose client responsibility for litigation costs and expenses where that responsibility exists. A later engagement agreement does not correct a misleading first impression in the ad. Match the disclosure to the actual arrangement and current Rule 7.1.

Additional rules for medication-related lawsuit advertising

Chapter 47, Article 28 uses its own definitions, including solicitations for legal services regarding the use of medications. Section 47-28-2 defines the covered communications and persons; its definition is not limited to litigation. Section 47-28-3 requires the exact statement “This is a paid advertisement for legal services.” It also requires identification of the sponsor and the identity of the attorney or firm that will represent clients, or an explanation of how potential clients or cases will be referred to the attorneys or firms that will represent them if the sponsor may not represent people responding to the advertisement. Do not replace that referral disclosure with a vague statement that other lawyers may be involved.

The statute prohibits presenting such an advertisement as a “consumer medical alert,” “health alert,” “consumer alert,” “public service health announcement,” or substantially similar phrase suggesting to a reasonable recipient that it offers professional, medical or government-agency advice about pharmaceuticals or medical devices rather than legal services. It also addresses government logos that suggest sponsorship or affiliation, and restricts use of “recall” to the circumstances stated in the statute.

For an advertisement connected with an FDA-approved prescription drug or medical device, the required warning is: “Do not stop taking a prescribed medication without first consulting with your doctor. Discontinuing a prescribed medication without your doctor’s advice can result in injury or death.” The statute also requires disclosure that the subject remains FDA-approved unless recalled or withdrawn. Disclosures must be clear and conspicuous; written disclosures must be legible and displayed long enough to read, and spoken disclosures must be audible and intelligible.

A willful and knowing violation of § 47-28-3 is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the state consumer-protection provision identified in the statute. These are campaign-specific requirements, not a generic disclaimer for all law-firm marketing. Review the full definitions and wording before designing a medication campaign.

Rules 7.2(c), 7.3(c) and comments; L.E.I. 96-01; Definitions, § 47-28-2; requirements, § 47-28-3; preserved disciplinary authority, § 47-28-5

Read source: Rules 7.2(c), 7.3(c) and comments · L.E.I. 96-01 · Definitions, § 47-28-2 · requirements, § 47-28-3 · preserved disciplinary authority, § 47-28-5

Filing, Review & Recordkeeping

The current Rules 7.1–7.5 reviewed for this guide do not establish a general advertising prefiling program or a fixed advertising-copy retention period. That is a finding about those rules, not a statement that every campaign is free from other legal obligations.

Be careful with older summaries that repeat a two-year advertising-record requirement. The court’s official amendment document strikes that provision from former Rule 7.2(b), effective January 1, 2015. The current rules should control the checklist; historical language should not silently restore a deleted provision.

As a practical risk-management measure, keep final creative, targeting, dates of use, disclosure versions and support for claims. This is a recommendation, not a newly identified mandatory retention term.

Current rules; official amendments, printed page 132

Read source: Current rules · official amendments, printed page 132

Results, Testimonials & Comparisons

Rule 7.1 prohibits material misrepresentations and omissions that make the whole communication misleading. Its comments also address literally true claims that create an unsupported conclusion. A truthful result can mislead if presented as an expectation for other clients without the relevant factual and legal context. Specific, unsubstantiated comparisons of services or fees can create the same problem.

Qualifying language may help, but a disclaimer is not an automatic cure. Avoid presenting a selected verdict, settlement or testimonial as a predictable outcome. Substantiate comparative claims rather than assuming that a phrase such as “best” is harmless puffery.

Official guidance: L.E.O. 2015-02 discusses client reviews and endorsements. It directs lawyers to monitor information on their social-networking pages, verify accuracy and remove or correct inaccurate endorsements. It also warns against disclosing confidential client information in a response to a positive or negative review. Rule 1.6 independently protects information relating to representation unless the client gives informed consent or another proper basis permits disclosure. A public review does not itself create that permission, and the opinion rejects treating an ordinary review as a general self-defense exception.

Rule 7.1 and comments; Rule 1.6; L.E.O. 2015-02, sections 6–7

Read source: Rule 7.1 and comments; Rule 1.6 · L.E.O. 2015-02, sections 6–7

Specialization & Certification

Rule 7.4 allows lawyers to describe the fields in which they do or do not practice. It separately permits specified patent-practice and admiralty designations for lawyers who meet those provisions.

West Virginia does not currently recognize specialization under Rule 7.4(d). The operative prohibition is against stating or implying that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field. Do not use an out-of-state credential or an organization’s badge to imply an exception that the West Virginia rule does not provide. Descriptions of actual practice and experience must still satisfy Rule 7.1.

Rule 7.4

Read source: Rule 7.4

Firm, Trade & Domain Names

Rule 7.5 permits private-practice trade names that are not misleading and do not imply a government connection or a connection with a public or charitable legal-services organization. Its comment also recognizes distinctive website addresses. A domain name therefore needs the same accuracy review as other professional branding.

A multijurisdictional firm may use the same name in different jurisdictions, but identification of lawyers in a particular office must disclose licensing limitations for lawyers not admitted there. Do not imply a partnership or other firm relationship that does not exist. The rule also restricts use of the name of a public-office holder during a substantial period when that lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm.

Separate from branding ethics, § 30-2-4 addresses unlicensed practice and holding oneself out as entitled to practice. Its proviso preserves advertising and assistance with advertising permitted by the professional-conduct rules; it should not be paraphrased as an unrestricted authorization for referral businesses.

Rule 7.5; § 30-2-4

Read source: Rule 7.5 · § 30-2-4

Solicitation & Direct Contact

Rule 7.3(a) prohibits direct or indirect solicitation through in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact when a significant motive is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, unless the recipient is a lawyer or has the specified family, close personal or prior professional relationship. The provision expressly reaches a lawyer’s agents, representatives and employees. Outsourcing the contact does not remove the restriction.

Even a form of solicitation not otherwise prohibited cannot involve coercion, duress or harassment, or disregard a person’s stated wish not to be solicited. The rule’s narrow group or prepaid-plan provision has conditions about ownership, control, the soliciting person and the intended recipients; it is not a general workaround for a lawyer-controlled marketing organization.

Rule 7.2(b) generally prohibits giving value for recommending the lawyer, with enumerated exceptions for reasonable advertising costs, qualifying legal-service plans or referral services, law-practice purchases and permitted reciprocal arrangements. Reciprocal arrangements must not be exclusive, and clients must be informed of their existence and nature.

Comment 5 permits payment for leads only subject to conditions, including no recommendation by the lead generator and consistency with professional-independence and truthful-communication duties. The lead generator must not recommend or vouch for the lawyer, suggest that the referral is unpaid when it is paid, or imply that it analyzed the person’s legal problem to determine which lawyer should receive the referral. Review the actual sales language, intake process and payment structure, not just the vendor’s description of its service.

Official guidance: L.E.O. 2018-01 rejects the particular nonlawyer-owned attorney-client matching model it examines, involving company-set services and fees, company collection of advance fees and a marketing fee tied to completed legal matters. Its analysis includes independence, trust handling, fee sharing and paid recommendations. That is more than a question of whether an invoice calls a charge “marketing.” It does not mean every ordinary advertising vendor is prohibited.

For medication-related solicitation, § 47-28-4 separately prohibits using, causing the use of, obtaining, selling, transferring or disclosing protected health information without written authorization for that solicitation purpose. It preserves the specified disclosures to a legal representative, disclosures in judicial or administrative proceedings, and disclosures otherwise permitted or required by law. A willful and knowing violation carries the misdemeanor penalty stated in the section, including a fine of up to $5,000, up to one year of imprisonment, or both. The section also says it creates or implies no liability for the specified FCC-licensed over-the-air broadcasters and cable operators. That limited provision is not a blanket exemption from every advertising obligation.

Rules 7.2–7.3; L.E.O. 2018-01; § 47-28-4

Read source: Rules 7.2–7.3 · L.E.O. 2018-01 · § 47-28-4

Channel-Specific Notes

• Websites and search ads: Check identity, address, licensing, claims and landing-page context. A general-public ad is different from a private message to an identified person with a known legal need.
• Email and direct messages: Determine whether the communication is targeted solicitation, whether the label applies and whether the exchange is live. Do not assume all messages are ordinary advertising just because they are typed.
• Social media: Review biographies, endorsements, video captions, private outreach and responses separately. L.E.O. 2015-02 warns that social interaction may create prospective-client duties when someone supplies information in response to an invitation to discuss representation.
• Video, radio and medication campaigns: Apply the correct spoken and visual disclosures to the actual creative. A website disclaimer alone does not satisfy a statute requiring intelligible disclosure in the advertisement.
• Vendors and matching services: Review both the message and the compensation/control arrangement. A compliant-looking landing page does not resolve solicitation, fee-sharing or independence problems.

These are implementation checks drawn from the authorities above, not a certification that a particular platform or campaign is permissible.

Professional-conduct rules

Read source: Professional-conduct rules

Recent Changes & Scope

The advertising framework summarized here follows the amendments effective January 1, 2015. Consult the court’s current consolidated rules, amendment materials and recent orders before relying on this summary; it does not establish that no pending proceeding or later authority exists. Older guidance can retain superseded citations and retention language.

In Recht v. Morrisey, decided April 27, 2022, the Fourth Circuit upheld the challenged medication-advertising prohibitions and disclosures against the First Amendment challenge before it, reversing and remanding with directions to dismiss. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 12, 2022. A denial of review is not a Supreme Court merits endorsement, and this case is not blanket clearance of a specific advertisement.

The official amendment document strikes the former two-year retention provision. This guide follows operative Rule 7.5(a) when discussing firm names and implications of affiliation. Older opinions remain advisory and must be read against current rules. Campaign-specific legal advice, statutory analysis and checking later authority remain necessary. No scheduled advertising-rule change is being asserted from a proposal alone.

Official Fourth Circuit opinion; Supreme Court docket 22-175; recent court rule orders; historical rule-order archive

Read source: Official Fourth Circuit opinion · Supreme Court docket 22-175 · recent court rule orders · historical rule-order archive

Official Sources

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

1. Binding rules and statutes: West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly 1.6 and 7.1–7.5; West Virginia Code §§ 30-2-4 and 47-28-2 through 47-28-5. Links are provided beside the relevant sections above. Professional-conduct rules; §30-2-4; Article28 definitions.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026
2. Official advisory guidance: L.E.I. 96-01 (April 25, 1996); L.E.O. 2015-02 (approved September 18, 2015); L.E.O. 2018-01 (approved June 22, 2018). The regulator’s opinion index explains their advisory status and warns about obsolete rules. Official ethics-opinion indexOfficial source · Checked November 12, 2026
3. Judicial decision: Recht v. Morrisey, No. 21-1684 (4th Cir. April 27, 2022), with the separate Supreme Court certiorari docket noted above. Fourth Circuit opinion; Supreme Court docket.Official source · Checked November 12, 2026

General information only. The responsible lawyer should review the current authorities and the proposed communication before publication or distribution.