Brandon Burke A law firm case results page is often the most persuasive page on your website. A prospective client sees a list of verdicts and settlements and reads it as proof that your firm delivers. That is also why it is the page most likely to cause trouble under attorney advertising rules.
The risk isn’t only a wrong number. A result can be accurate and still mislead. It might be atypical, or missing context that would change how a reader sees it, or published without the client’s consent.
If you build or audit that page, the questions are the same. What do the rules say about past results? What does each entry need? Who signs off before it goes live?
Why a true result can still mislead
ABA Model Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services. Your website counts, and so does every entry on a results page.
The comments to Rule 7.1 speak directly to past results. Comment [3] says a truthful report of a lawyer’s achievements may still be misleading. The problem arises when it creates an unjustified expectation that other clients could get the same result without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. The comment adds that an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may prevent that.
Florida’s rules explain how this happens in practice. The comment on past results in Rule 4-7.13 says a result that is atypical of people in similar circumstances is likely misleading. It also says leaving out pertinent information is misleading. Its examples:
- The judgment was uncontested or obtained by default.
- The amount is far short of the client’s actual damages.
Think about a large verdict entered by default. The number is real. A reader, though, may picture a hard-fought trial and assume your firm can repeat it. Without context, the entry says something that isn’t true.
The same comment makes a point about vocabulary. Words like “successful” or “won” may mean one thing to a lawyer and another to a prospective client. A settlement your team counts as a win may look very different to someone outside the case.
What the ABA, Florida, and New York require
The Model Rules set a baseline. Each state adopts its own version, and some regulate past results much more specifically. Florida and New York are two clear examples.
| Jurisdiction | What it says about past results | Where to read it |
|---|---|---|
| ABA Model Rules | Rule 7.1 bars misleading communications. Comment [3] warns that truthful results can create unjustified expectations, and that a disclaimer or qualifying language may help. Rule 1.6 governs confidentiality. | Rule 7.1, Rule 1.6 |
| Florida | Rule 4-7.13(b)(2) treats references to past results as inherently misleading unless the information is objectively verifiable. (b)(1) covers statements a reader could take as a prediction or guaranty of results. (b)(3) requires characterizations of a lawyer’s record to be objectively verifiable. The comment requires the affected client’s informed consent to advertise a result. | Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Rule 4-7.13) |
| New York | Rule 7.1 permits statements likely to create an expectation about results, such as past results, only if they are not misleading, can be factually supported as of publication, and carry the disclaimer “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.” It also sets retention requirements for advertising, including websites. | 22 NYCRR 1200.7.1 |
| Your state | Numbering, disclaimers, and conditions vary. Check your bar’s advertising rules and related ethics opinions. | Your state bar’s website |
A note on Florida. Its rules include a results disclaimer requirement, but that one applies to testimonials. The past-results standard for your own list of verdicts is objective verifiability, plus the context and consent the comment describes.
New York requires this disclaimer in advertisements that describe results, and it treats websites as advertising. It is short and easy to place near the top of a results page:
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1
Even where your state doesn’t require that exact wording, qualifying language like it fits the ABA comment’s suggestion. This is general information, not legal advice. Rules vary by state, so check your own bar’s advertising rules, or ask your ethics counsel, before you publish.
Get consent before you publish the number
A results entry discloses information about a client’s matter. The case type, the outcome, and the amount can all fall within ABA Model Rule 1.6. That rule covers “information relating to the representation of a client.” Unless an exception applies, revealing it requires the client’s informed consent.
Firms sometimes assume a verdict is fair game because it is in the court record. Florida’s comment addresses this directly. A lawyer who wants to advertise a past result needs the affected client’s informed consent. The fact that the information is public doesn’t remove that need.
Two practical points follow.
Check the settlement agreement first. A settlement may include a confidentiality provision that limits what anyone can say about the amount or the terms. Read the agreement before the result goes on your list, not after. Our overview of the personal injury settlement process covers where that document fits.
Anonymizing helps, but it doesn’t replace consent. Leaving out the client’s name reduces exposure when consent is limited. Case details can still identify a person, especially in a small community or a widely reported case. Florida’s comment requires consent to advertise past results and makes no exception for anonymized entries.
Get consent in writing, even where your state doesn’t demand it. Show the client the exact entry, where it will appear, and how they’ll be described. For more on the underlying duty, see our guide to lawyer client confidentiality.
What to include with each result
The fix for a misleading entry is usually more context, not less. Here is what a well-built entry carries, and why each piece matters.
| Element | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Case type | Tells the reader whether the result is relevant to their situation at all. |
| Gross or net | A reader may assume the figure is what the client took home. Say whether it is the total recovery or the client’s net. |
| How it was resolved | Settlement, jury verdict, default, or uncontested judgment. Florida’s comment calls out default and uncontested judgments as context that matters. |
| Relevant limits | For example, a recovery capped by available insurance limits, or one well short of the client’s actual damages. |
| Date | Older results reflect older law, older venues, and sometimes different attorneys. |
| Disclaimer | Qualifying language near the entries, and exact wording where your state requires it. |
The gross versus net question is easy to miss. Attorney fees and case costs come out of the total recovery, so the client’s share is smaller than the headline number. Our guide to how much lawyers take from a settlement walks through that math. Labeling the figure isn’t a universal rule. It is simply the easiest way to avoid omitting something a reader would want to know.
Framing that tends to cause trouble
Beyond individual entries, the page as a whole can mislead. Watch for these patterns:
- Only the biggest numbers. A page of outliers suggests they are typical. Florida’s comment treats atypical results as likely misleading.
- “Record,” “best,” or “largest” labels. Florida’s (b)(3) requires characterizations of a lawyer’s record to be objectively verifiable. Only use these words if you can prove them.
- “Won” and “successful.” These words carry different meanings for lawyers and the public. Describe what happened instead.
- Headlines that read as a promise. Copy like “We get results like these” can read as a prediction. Florida’s (b)(1) treats that kind of statement as inherently misleading.
Results pages sit inside a broader marketing program. For how they fit with ads, search, and reviews, see our guide to personal injury law marketing. Our piece on attorney reputation management covers the reputation side.
A checklist before an entry goes live
A written process keeps results decisions out of the hands of whoever wants to post the latest big number. Here is one to adapt with your ethics counsel.
- Confirm the number against the source. Pull it from the judgment, verdict form, or settlement documents, not from memory or an email.
- Read the settlement agreement. Check for any confidentiality provision that covers the amount or terms.
- Get the client’s written consent. Show them the exact entry, where it will appear, and how they’ll be identified.
- Add the context. Case type, gross or net, how it was resolved, relevant limits, and the date.
- Check whether it is typical. If it is an outlier, say so, or reconsider publishing it.
- Check the wording. Remove unverifiable labels and any copy that reads as a prediction.
- Apply your state’s rules. Confirm required disclaimers and any other conditions in your jurisdiction.
- Record the approval. Note who approved the entry and when it was published.
One person should own this list, typically the marketing director or a managing partner. The approval step matters most. It is the point where someone with authority confirms the entry is ready.
Keep a file for every result
Every entry on your results page should have a file behind it. Include the source document, the client’s signed consent, the published text, the publication date, and who approved it.
That file answers questions later. If a client asks you to take an entry down, you know exactly what was published. If your bar asks how you verified a number, you can show it.
In New York, it also supports a specific requirement. Rule 7.1 requires lawyers to retain copies of advertisements for three years, or one year for computer-accessed communications. For websites, the rule calls for preserving a copy at initial publication and at any major redesign or meaningful and extensive content change. It also requires a copy at least every 90 days. Other states set their own retention rules, so check yours.
Where CasePulse fits
A results page depends on clients who are willing to be featured. In our view, a client who always knew where their case stood is an easier person to ask. That part of the client experience is what we help firms improve.
CasePulse is our client portal, and it works on top of the case management system you already use. That includes Neos, Needles, LawBase, Litify, and Salesforce. Clients get 24/7 case status and automated updates when their case moves. They also get messaging, forms, and file sharing, all under your firm’s branding. This matters at the settlement stage too, when clients often have questions about what the number means for them. We don’t build results pages, and we can’t tell you whether an entry complies with your state’s advertising rules. What we can do is help clients stay informed from intake to close. See the full feature list for details, and our guide to managing client expectations for the conversation that comes first.
Want clients who finish their case feeling informed, not surprised? Get started to see how CasePulse works with your case management system.