Attorney Ad Rule Updates: 11 States, 2024-2026

California SB 37 grabbed headlines. It isn’t the only state moving on attorney advertising. We tracked rule changes across 11 states from January 2024 through May 2026. The pattern matters more than any single rule. The era of jurisdiction-agnostic legal advertising is closing.

Most state bars didn’t formally amend their core advertising rules in this window. Two did, with consequence. One posted proposed amendments. One state supreme court issued a published decision that reshaped competitor keyword advertising. The rest are quiet, but the quiet states are still risk. Multi-state advertisers face 50 different rule numbers, 50 different disclosure standards, and 50 different enforcement bodies. State-by-state compliance is becoming the moat.

Here’s what we found, state by state, with the rule numbers and effective dates that matter.

California: SB 37 Rewrote The Floor

California Senate Bill 37 took effect January 1, 2026. It’s the most consequential attorney advertising statute adopted by any state in the past five years. Statutory damages run $5,000 to $100,000 per violation. Consumers can sue advertisers directly after a 21-day State Bar review and a 72-hour withdrawal window.

The bill mandates explicit responsible-attorney disclosure and a bona fide California office location in every ad. It bans guarantees of outcome, predictions of success, and misleading skill or experience claims. The “intelligible if spoken” standard for disclosures means an end-card flash of 8-point type doesn’t satisfy the rule.

Los Angeles alone moves $22.5 million per month in legal advertising. SB 37 exposure concentrates on multi-state advertisers running national CTV, broadcast, and paid social creative without California-specific disclosure footers.

Pennsylvania: Adopted Amendments Effective November 14, 2024

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court adopted broad amendments to Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 on October 15, 2024. They took effect November 14, 2024, on Disciplinary Board recommendation.

Rule 7.1. New comments require lawyers in multi-jurisdictional firms to identify jurisdictional limitations. New language prohibits lawyers from holding themselves out as practicing together if they don’t. Rule 7.1 now expressly applies to communications about a lawyer’s nonlegal services.

Rule 7.2. The rule was renamed from “Advertising” to “Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services: Specific Rules.” The two-year ad retention requirement under prior subsection (b) was repealed. New subsection (c) lets lawyers state they do or don’t practice in particular fields, while keeping bans on specialization claims outside five enumerated exceptions. New subsection (k) requires every communication to include the name and contact information of at least one responsible lawyer or law firm.

Rule 7.3. Solicitation rules now expressly include text messages in the “person-to-person contact” definition, prohibiting unsolicited text outreach. Class action notices are clarified as authorized communications.

Rules 7.4, 7.5, and 7.7 were removed and reserved. Their content was consolidated into the other rules.

The practical effect: any firm running Pennsylvania campaigns since November 14, 2024 needs a responsible-attorney disclosure on every ad, no SMS solicitation, and a fresh look at multi-jurisdictional practice claims.

New York: Proposed Amendments Posted December 30, 2025

The New York State Unified Court System’s Administrative Board of the Courts released proposed amendments to Rules 1.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 for public comment on December 30, 2025. The proposal aligns NY with the ABA Model Rules on attorney advertising and solicitation.

No adoption is confirmed yet. No effective date is published. The comment period and Appellate Division department approvals are pending. Firms running New York campaigns should monitor the posting through 2026 and prepare for adoption in late 2026 or 2027.

NY is the country’s largest legal ad market by raw spend. The Barnes Firm and Morgan & Morgan dominate broadcast there, and CTV inventory is wide open. When the amendments adopt, they’ll hit national advertisers running NYC creative without responsible-attorney disclosure first.

Ohio: New Rule 7.4 Effective April 15, 2024

Ohio adopted a new Rule 7.4 on Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization, effective April 15, 2024. The amendment relaxed the prior bar on specialization claims. Lawyers can now hold themselves out as specialists through a two-step process via the Supreme Court Commission on Certification of Attorneys as Specialists, rather than requiring direct certification by an outside organization.

Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 themselves were not amended. Other amendments to Chapter 7 were under consideration but not adopted in the 2024-2026 window.

New Jersey: 2025 Supreme Court Decision On Competitor Keywords

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued In re Opinion No. 735 of Supreme Ct. Advisory Comm. on Pro. Ethics, 260 N.J. 482 (2025). The court ruled attorneys can purchase competitors’ names as keywords for search engine ads without violating RPC 7.1, 7.2, or related rules, absent intent to mislead.

The decision permits a long-disputed practice. It also signals NJ’s read on what counts as “false or misleading” in digital advertising. Justice Fasciale dissented, calling the practice potentially leeching. RPC 7.1 through 7.3 themselves weren’t amended in the 2024-2026 window.

The Office of Attorney Ethics 2024 Annual Report contains no advertising rule amendments.

States That Held The Line

The other six states we tracked didn’t formally amend their core advertising rules. The rule numbers and disclosure standards differ enough that multi-state advertisers still need state-specific compliance work.

Texas. Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 7.01 through 7.05 were last meaningfully updated July 1, 2021. The Advertising Review Committee filing process and fee schedule remain unchanged. Non-exempt ads filed late carry a $250 fine plus a $100 review fee.

Florida. Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.23 weren’t amended in 2024-2026. Standing Board Policy 13.10(f)(1)(C) was updated in early 2026 to expand prohibited ad categories on Florida Bar publications. Effective May 1, 2025, Bar staff went paperless on advertising opinions, but filings still require physical mail and check payment until an online system launches.

Georgia. Rules 7.1 through 7.5 weren’t amended. Rule 7.2 still requires firm name, address, and phone in every ad, with two-year recordkeeping.

Illinois. Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 weren’t amended by the ARDC. Rule 8.4(j) on harassment and discrimination took effect July 2024, but it’s unrelated to advertising.

Arizona. ER 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 weren’t amended in 2024-2026. The post-2020 alternative business structure reforms governing nonlawyer firm operations didn’t touch the advertising rules.

North Carolina. Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 weren’t amended. The State Bar Lawyer’s Handbook 2024-2025 reflects no updates. Prior formal opinions on testimonials and social media incentives still govern application without altering rule text.

Massachusetts. Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 weren’t amended. The most recent material change to Rule 7.2 dates to July 1, 2015. Comment 4A to Rule 5.5 on cross-border remote practice took effect April 1, 2024, but it’s unrelated to advertising.

The Pattern Across States

Four threads run through the changes that did adopt or get proposed.

Responsible-attorney disclosure. California SB 37 mandates it. Pennsylvania’s new Rule 7.2(k) requires it. New York’s proposed Rule 7.2 amendments include it. The country is converging on a baseline that every ad must name a responsible attorney or firm in clear and prominent disclosure.

Modernized solicitation rules. Pennsylvania expressly added text messages to the prohibited person-to-person solicitation list. The New York proposal addresses electronic and digital solicitation channels. The State Bar of Texas modernized digital communications rules in 2021 and is unlikely to revisit.

Specialization claim flexibility. Ohio’s new Rule 7.4 relaxed the bar on specialization claims via a two-step certification path. New Jersey now permits “expertise,” “specialize,” and “specialist” if accurate. Pennsylvania kept bans on specialization claims outside five enumerated exceptions. The direction varies, but every state is reconsidering what specialization claims should require.

Tighter standards on outcome and skill claims. California SB 37 expressly bans guarantees of outcome and predictions of success. The other states maintain similar prohibitions through Rule 7.1’s general ban on false or misleading communications. The enforcement intensity varies, but the substantive rule converges.

What This Means For Multi-State Advertisers

Three operational implications hit immediately.

Creative pipelines need state-specific versions. A national CTV spot can’t carry one disclosure footer and clear all 11 states. California needs the SB 37 responsible-attorney and bona fide office disclosure. Pennsylvania needs Rule 7.2(k) responsible-lawyer disclosure with contact information. Texas needs ARC filing within 10 days of dissemination unless exempt. The fix is creative work, not legal work, but the creative work is real.

Compliance audits should cover the quiet states too. A firm that’s compliant with California’s new floor probably isn’t compliant with Pennsylvania’s new responsible-lawyer disclosure standard. The national pattern is converging, but the rule numbers and the enforcement bodies differ. A site footer that reads “Office in Los Angeles, California” doesn’t satisfy Pennsylvania’s Rule 7.2(k) on its own.

Lead networks need state-by-state diligence. Buyers are responsible for the compliance of underlying ad campaigns. A national lead network running California traffic without California-specific compliance puts the buying firm on the hook. A network running Pennsylvania traffic without responsible-lawyer disclosure does the same in Pennsylvania.

What’s Coming In Late 2026 And 2027

Three regulatory threads to watch.

New York adoption. The proposed Rules 1.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 amendments are in public comment now. Adoption likely lands in late 2026 or 2027. NY is the country’s largest legal ad market, and the proposal aligns with the ABA Model Rules. National advertisers will face the largest compliance burden after California.

State follow-on legislation. Texas, Florida, and other major markets had advertising reform bills under consideration in 2025-2026 sessions. None adopted. The political environment after California’s first SB 37 lawsuits will shape whether other states follow. Watch for Texas, Florida, and Illinois to introduce similar bills if California enforcement gets aggressive.

Federal AI advertising guidance. Multiple states issued AI-related advertising guidance in 2024-2025 outside the formal rules process. AI-generated images, voice cloning, and synthetic spokespeople are surfacing in attorney ads. Expect rule-level guidance in 2026 and 2027 across most major markets.

The deeper trend is convergence. State-by-state compliance is the moat for the next 24 months. The firms with creative pipelines that ship state-specific versions on a tight timeline win. The firms still running templated national creative pay the legal bills first.

What Firms Should Do This Quarter

Three steps fit into a 90-day window.

Inventory by state. Pull every active campaign by DMA. Map each campaign to the state’s current rule number and disclosure standard. The list is short for most firms. The work to map it is straightforward.

Update creative footers and disclosures. Add a responsible-attorney name and bona fide office disclosure to every California ad. Add a responsible-lawyer name and contact information to every Pennsylvania ad. Audit specialization language in Ohio and New Jersey. Pull SMS solicitation in Pennsylvania.

Audit landing pages and websites. State bars treat websites as advertisements. Footers need state-specific responsible-attorney disclosures, bar numbers, and bona fide office addresses for every state where the firm advertises.

The compliance clock started in California on January 1. It started in Pennsylvania on November 14, 2024. It’s running quiet in seven other states. The first wave of multi-state lawsuits will land in California, but the pattern will spread. The firms that build state-aware creative pipelines now will move faster when the next state rule adopts.

References

1. California Legislature. "SB-37 Attorneys: Unlawful Solicitations and Advertisements." 2025-2026 Regular Session.
2. Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. "Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to Advertising and Solicitation Rules." 2024.
3. New York State Unified Court System. "Request for Public Comment: Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney Advertising." December 30, 2025.
4. Court News Ohio. "Rule Amendments on Attorney Specialization." March 6, 2024.
5. State Bar of Texas. "Advertising Review."
6. The Florida Bar. "Advertising Updates."
7. State Bar of Georgia. "Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct."
8. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. "Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct."
9. State Bar of Arizona. "Rules of Professional Conduct."
10. North Carolina State Bar. "Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services."
11. Marshall Dennehey. "New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Competitive Keyword Advertising for Attorneys Does Not Violate RPC."
12. Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. "Rules of Professional Conduct."