Lawyer past results advertising runs on one model standard and every state's adopted version of it: ABA Model Rule 7.1 bans the misleading result, and your state's text decides what a results claim needs around it.
The full rule stack is in lawyer advertising rules; this page stays on results.
What the Model Rules say about advertising past results
ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits any false or misleading communication about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, including a statement that omits a fact needed to keep it from being materially misleading.
Comment [3] is the past-results comment: truthful reports of past results may be misleading if they lead a reasonable person to expect the same result without regard to each case's facts.
It adds that an appropriate disclaimer "may preclude a finding" that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations, and it prescribes no wording.
Model Rules bind no one until a state adopts them; New Jersey's RPC 7.1(a), as amended through Sept 1, 2018, still reaches communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results.
The comment-by-comment breakdown is in ABA Model Rule 7.1.
What state rules add for verdicts and case results
Per the ABA's Rule 7.1 variations chart (last updated July 20, 2022), Missouri and Montana require a statement that past results afford no guarantee when results are advertised.
Florida turns the test on the result: Rule 4-7.13(b)(2), in force since Aug 21, 2023, treats past results as deceptive unless objectively verifiable, with the affected client's informed consent required even for a public-record result.
Texas goes after the number: under Rule 7.01(g), a lawyer who advertises a verdict knowing it was later reduced, reversed or settled for less must state the amount the client actually received with equal or greater prominence.
Rule 7.01 Comment 10, as amended by a Texas Supreme Court order dated Jan 31, 2022, lets a lawyer claim credit for a result only if the lawyer played a substantial role in it, such as lead counsel.
New York went the other way: amendments effective June 1, 2026 eliminated old Rule 7.1(d) and its required "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" statement.
Amended Comment [3] still warns that truthful results can mislead, and NYSBA's commentary says lawyers "may want to consider" keeping it; the rest of the rewrite is in New York attorney advertising rules.
California presumes rather than bans: Business and Professions Code section 6158.1 attaches a rebuttable presumption of falsity or misleadingness to case results presented out of context in electronic-media ads (television, radio or computer networks, per section 6157(c)); the other presumptions cover injury or accident-scene depictions and messages about money received or potential recovery; section 6158.3 then requires an ad portraying a result to disclose that it depended on its facts, or to explain the facts.
The model baseline
- Truthful results can mislead by inviting the same-outcome expectation.
- A disclaimer "may preclude" that finding; no wording is set.
What five states add
- Missouri, Montana: "past results afford no guarantee" statement (2022 chart).
- Florida: verifiable results, client consent (Rule 4-7.13(b)(2)).
- Texas: a reduced verdict shows the amount actually received (Rule 7.01(g)).
- New York: required disclaimer dropped June 1, 2026.
- California: rebuttable presumption for out-of-context results (§6158.1).
Can lawyers advertise settlements?
Settlements are past results, so Comment [3]'s test reaches them: advertised without the facts that produced it, a settlement can leave a reasonable person expecting the same outcome.
Texas's Rule 7.01(g) is the settlement case in practice: the advertised verdict that settled for less must appear with the amount actually received, equally prominent.
Florida's standard applies too: the result must be objectively verifiable, and the affected client's informed consent is required even for a public-record result.
California also bars the fast-money pitch: Business and Professions Code section 6157.2(a), as of Jan 1, 2026, prohibits ads claiming the lawyer can generally get immediate cash or quick settlements.
The case results disclaimer: what it does and does not do
The model comment is permissive: a disclaimer "may preclude a finding" of misleadingness, and Texas's Rule 7.01 Comment 5 repeats the formula, so neither is a safe harbor.
Missouri and Montana go further and require a statement that past results afford no guarantee (the ABA's 2022 chart).
California's Comment [4] stops softer: an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language "often avoids" creating unjustified expectations, with no wording set.
New York eliminated its required statement effective June 1, 2026, though NYSBA's commentary says lawyers "may want to consider" keeping it.
The FTC adds a layer for testimonials: the Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255, revised July 26, 2023) bar endorsements presented out of context or reworded to distort the endorser's opinion, and a testimonial showing unrepresentative results should clearly disclose generally expected performance.
The Guides are interpretive guidance, not a rule with penalties by themselves.
The labels and placement questions that apply to every advertising disclaimer are in attorney advertising disclaimer.
Verdicts and settlements on a law firm website
Results pages are website content, and ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 (Aug 5, 2010) treats that content as a communication subject to Rule 7.1.
The same opinion says website content should be kept current, and that naming current or former clients requires their informed consent; promoting a client's identity is not normally impliedly authorized.
It is a 2010 opinion reading the pre-2018 rules.
Formal Opinion 480 (Mar 6, 2018) covers the write-up: a lawyer who blogs or posts publicly may not reveal information relating to a representation, even public-record facts, unless a rule authorizes it.
Both are ABA interpretations, and your state's rules and opinions control.
The duties a website takes on are in law firm website ethics; the persuasion side of results content is in law firm website trust signals.
A pre-publication check for case results copy
The checks cluster around three questions: verifiable result, fair context, client consent.
- The result is specific enough to verify, not a vague "numerous wins" claim (Florida's comment to Rule 4-7.13).
- The client's informed consent is documented before the case is named, per Formal Opinion 10-457 (Florida's comment requires it for any advertised result).
- The context is stated, such as a judgment that was uncontested or obtained by default (Florida's comment).
- A verdict later reduced or settled for less appears with the amount actually received (Texas Rule 7.01(g)).
- A testimonial showing an atypical result discloses generally expected performance, as the FTC's Endorsement Guides ask.
- Any wording your state prescribes appears next to the claim.
More Booked Cases tests law firm websites and landing pages and measures consultation and signed-case rates with read access to intake or CRM numbers; bar-rule review of copy is not part of it.
States differ and several of these rules changed within the last year: confirm your results pages with your state bar's ethics counsel or an ethics lawyer.
Frequently asked questions
What makes a past result misleading even when it is true?
Comment [3] to ABA Model Rule 7.1 says truthful reports of past results can mislead when they lead a reasonable person to expect the same result without regard to each case's facts. Florida's comment gives the concrete examples: an atypical result, or a judgment that was uncontested or obtained by default when the ad does not say so.
Can a law firm advertise a settlement?
Settlements are past results, so the same false-or-misleading standard reaches them. Texas Rule 7.01(g) requires a verdict that later settled for less to be advertised with the amount the client actually received, and Florida treats results as deceptive unless objectively verifiable, with the affected client's informed consent. Your state's adopted rule controls.
Do you need a client's consent to advertise their case?
ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 (Aug 5, 2010) says naming current or former clients requires their informed consent, and Florida's comment to Rule 4-7.13 requires the affected client's informed consent to advertise a past result even when it is in the public record. State rules and opinions control.
What does 'objectively verifiable' mean for a case result?
Florida's comment illustrates the edge with a claim like 'I have won numerous appellate cases', which it says may or may not be objectively verifiable. A specific result that can be checked against the record is the direction the standard points; the exact test is your state's.