If the State Bar of Arizona clarifies — as several signals from the ethics committee suggest it’s about to — that Rule 7.1’s “false or misleading” standard applies fully to AI-generated bio content, displayed testimonials, and case-result summaries, the practical impact on most Phoenix law firm websites is bigger than firms think. Plain-English translation below, plus the five places on your site where 7.1 already applies and what to fix this week.
I read bar opinions because they directly shape what I can recommend. None of this is legal advice — a formal opinion comes from the State Bar of Arizona’s ethics hotline or your malpractice carrier. This is the marketing read.
Rule 7.1’s core language hasn’t changed in years. The “false or misleading” standard has always covered everything a lawyer communicates publicly. What’s emerging in 2026 is the question of how that decades-old standard applies to two things lawyers now do every day — having AI write bio paragraphs and displaying client reviews on the firm’s own site without the right framing. The bar doesn’t need to rewrite 7.1 to address either. They just need to clarify the existing standard. That clarification is coming.
What 7.1 actually says, in plain English
Rule 7.1 prohibits “false or misleading communications” about a lawyer’s services. The Arizona version tracks the ABA Model Rule closely. A communication is misleading even if literally true if it would create an “unjustified expectation” in a reasonable consumer or omits a material fact.
Both standards are subjective. Both are read expansively by ethics committees. Both have always covered website content, even though most firms treat their website as if it were somehow exempt because nobody reads it out loud. For a deeper read on how 7.1 interacts with reviews specifically, see the ABA rules on soliciting client reviews. This post covers what changes when the bar tightens the application.
The five places on a law firm website where 7.1 applies
Most firms think of “advertising” as the billboard, the radio spot, the Google Ad. Rule 7.1 doesn’t make that distinction. Anything the firm publishes a prospective client might read is a communication about the lawyer’s services. Five places on your site fall under the rule.
1. Attorney bio pages. Every claim of experience, every numerical statistic (“over 500 cases handled”), every credential, every specialty implication. If a paragraph claims something specific, the firm needs to be able to back it. “Aggressive trial attorney” is fine — it’s puffery. “Specializing in catastrophic injury” is not — Arizona restricts use of “specialist” and “specialize” unless the lawyer is bar-certified in a recognized specialty.
2. Practice area pages. Any claim about typical outcomes (“we get our clients the maximum settlement”), any implied frequency (“we win the majority of jury trials”), any unsupported superlative (“Phoenix’s most experienced criminal defense firm”) sits squarely inside 7.1.
3. Case results pages. The verdicts and settlements section. Arizona requires specific disclaimers on past-results claims, and the disclaimers have to be more than a buried footer link. See case result disclaimers for the specific language and placement. Bigger issue — the underlying facts of the case have to be accurate, the result has to be representative of the matter type or disclosed as exceptional, and confidential details can’t be exposed.
4. Testimonials and displayed reviews. Selective display of only five-star reviews on the firm’s own site (without a representative sample, link to the unfiltered platform, or appropriate disclaimer) is the most common 7.1 issue I see in audits. There’s a real distinction between a third-party platform review and a testimonial pulled onto the firm’s site — and most firms don’t draw it. See reviews vs testimonials on your site.
5. Blog content and AI-generated explainers. If a blog post promises specific outcomes, implies the firm will handle a case in a particular way, or makes a claim about the firm’s expertise that isn’t supported, it’s a 7.1 problem. The increasing volume of AI-generated content on law firm sites — written by a vendor’s content engine and lightly edited — is where I expect the next wave of bar attention.
If the bar clarifies anything in 2026, it’s that having an AI write your bio doesn’t move the 7.1 standard. You are still the lawyer making the representation. The fact that you didn’t type the sentence doesn’t make the sentence less yours.
The disclosure language that’s now expected
Three pieces of disclosure language are no longer optional on most law firm sites. None are new. What’s new is the bar’s increasing willingness to find a 7.1 violation when they’re missing.
The past-results disclaimer. “Past results do not guarantee future outcomes” should appear on any page showing verdicts, settlements, case summaries, or outcome statistics. Not buried in the footer in 10-point gray — visible on the page where the claim sits, readable on mobile without zooming.
The specialty disclaimer. Arizona Rule 7.4 restricts use of “specialist” and “specialize” unless the lawyer is bar-certified. “Focused practice in,” “practice limited to,” “experience handling” — all fine. “Specialist in” or “specializing in” without certification — not fine.
The testimonial disclaimer. When you pull a quote from a Google review and display it as a testimonial on your site, the safe-practice disclaimer is some version of “This testimonial reflects this client’s individual experience and is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of your matter.” Place it within reasonable visual proximity of the testimonial — not buried elsewhere.
AI-generated bio content — where the line is
Here’s where most firms are in 2026 — the marketing vendor or marketing manager runs the attorney bio through an AI to “make it sound stronger.” The AI returns a paragraph using “renowned,” “elite,” “premier,” “top-rated,” and credits the attorney with quantitative achievements that may or may not match reality. The attorney glances at it, thinks “sure, that sounds fine,” and approves. That paragraph goes live.
Every word the AI added is the attorney’s representation under Rule 7.1. There’s no “the AI said it” defense — the firm published the page. If the AI invented a credential, a number, or an unverifiable superlative, the firm owns it. I’ve audited firms where the AI hallucinated bar admissions in states the attorney has never practiced. Live on the bio page. For months.
The line isn’t “don’t use AI.” The line is — read every sentence the AI produced against the facts. If it makes a verifiable claim, verify it. If it makes a comparative claim (“one of Phoenix’s leading…”), strip it. If it implies a specialty without certification, fix it. The tool is fine. The unread output is the problem. The same logic applies to AI-drafted case summaries on practice or case-result pages — see case result pages and SEO. Most 7.1 problems I find aren’t the AI being malicious. They’re the AI being plausible and the human not reading carefully.
What to fix this week
If you don’t have time to overhaul everything, here’s the triage order. Each takes under an hour and substantially reduces 7.1 exposure.
Read every attorney bio against the actual CV. Fix unsupported claims — bar admissions you don’t have, specialties you can’t certify, numbers you can’t substantiate, superlatives that aren’t true. Twenty minutes per attorney. Catches most AI hallucinations.
Add the past-results disclaimer to every page mentioning verdicts, settlements, dollar figures, or outcome statistics. Not just the case results page — also practice pages that say “we recovered $X for clients in matters like yours.”
Audit the testimonials section. If you display selected client quotes, either link out to the unfiltered platform (Google, Avvo) where readers can see the full distribution, or add the testimonial disclaimer with visual prominence. Selective display without context is the cleanest 7.1 violation in modern legal marketing.
Strip “specialist,” “specialize,” “specializing,” and “expert” from every page where the attorney isn’t bar-certified. Replace with “focused practice,” “practice limited to,” “experience handling.” Fifteen minutes of find-and-replace. Eliminates one of the most consistently flagged issues in Arizona.
None of this is glamorous SEO work. It’s also the cleanup that — if the bar clarifies in the direction I expect — separates the firms that get a courtesy nudge from staff counsel from the firms that get a formal inquiry. The difference is an afternoon of careful reading.
— The owner, PHX Search Co.
