Yes — almost always. Case results are one of the highest-leverage trust signals you can put on a law firm website, both for SEO and for conversion. The compliance work isn’t complicated: ABA Model Rule 7.1 (and its state-level equivalents) requires that case results be truthful, in proper context, and accompanied by appropriate disclaimers. Done right, case results help rank your practice pages and convert the traffic that lands on them. Done wrong, they’re an ethics complaint waiting to happen.
Here’s why case results are worth the compliance overhead, what your state bar actually requires, and the specific mistakes to avoid.
The SEO benefit — substantive content matching buyer intent
From a pure SEO standpoint, case results are some of the most substantive content a law firm can publish. Real outcomes, real specifics, real practice-area context. Google’s Helpful Content updates have explicitly rewarded pages that demonstrate first-hand experience — and “here’s what we did in actual cases” is the clearest demonstration available for a law firm. Case results pages and case-result sections of practice pages tend to rank well precisely because they’re the substance Google is trying to surface.
They also fit the underlying buyer intent. A person searching “Phoenix DUI lawyer” wants to know two things before they call: do you handle this kind of case, and are you any good at it. A page that includes specific representative outcomes — verdicts, settlements, dismissals, reductions — answers both questions in a way a generic “we have years of experience” paragraph never can. More on case-result pages here.
The conversion benefit — specifics build trust faster than adjectives
Every law firm website says some version of “experienced, aggressive, dedicated.” The words mean nothing because every competitor uses them too. Specific case outcomes break through the adjective fog. “$2.4M settlement in a 2024 commercial trucking case” tells a prospect more than three paragraphs of pillar-text claims about your firm’s commitment to excellence.
The conversion lift from real case results on practice pages is the most consistent improvement I see when I rebuild a firm’s pages. Trust gets built faster, the prospect spends more time on the page, and the call-to-action conversion goes up. Not by a small amount — usually by enough that I can predict it during an audit.
Every adjective on your practice page is doing less work than one specific dollar amount with a disclaimer underneath it. Lawyers know this. Most of them still don’t do it.
What ABA Rule 7.1 actually requires
ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits “false or misleading” communications about a lawyer’s services. The rule is implemented in every state, with some variation. In plain English, here’s what it means for case results:
Truthful. The result has to be accurate. The settlement amount, the verdict, the disposition — all factual.
In context. The result has to be presented in a way that doesn’t mislead. A $2M settlement in an unusually catastrophic case shouldn’t be displayed in a way that implies it’s a typical outcome. Cherry-picking your three biggest verdicts and presenting them as representative crosses the misleading line.
No implied guarantees. The page can’t suggest that hiring your firm guarantees a similar result. This is where the standard disclaimer comes in — language like “Past results don’t guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different and depends on its specific facts.”
The standard disclaimer language is widely accepted and required by most state bars. Put it visibly on every page that displays case results. Not buried in the footer. Visibly near the results themselves. More on disclaimer language here.
How state bars vary — the high-risk jurisdictions
Most states adopt Rule 7.1 substantially as written. A few have additional requirements that catch firms by surprise.
New York has historically been the strictest. New York’s rules require that any case-result advertising include specific disclaimer language (“Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome”) and prohibit certain framing that other states allow. New York firms need to read DR 2-101 carefully and probably have their site reviewed by an ethics-aware professional.
Florida has detailed advertising rules including pre-approval requirements for some lawyer advertising and specific content restrictions. Case result advertising is permitted but must follow Rule 4-7 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar — including verifiability and disclaimer requirements that go beyond the ABA model.
Arizona (the home of most of our clients) follows the ABA model closely. Standard disclaimers, no cherry-picking, truthful presentation — and you’re in compliance. The Arizona Bar’s interpretation has been relatively permissive on case results compared to states like New York. But “permissive” doesn’t mean “anything goes” — the misleading-presentation rule still applies.
If you practice in multiple jurisdictions, the conservative move is to comply with the strictest state’s rules across the site. Read your specific state bar’s advertising rules. They’re usually a 30-minute read, and they’re authoritative.
The specific mistakes to avoid
Three common failure modes. Each one has caught firms in ethics trouble.
Cherry-picking misleadingly. If you only show your three best outcomes and the practice’s typical results are dramatically different, the page is misleading even though every fact on it is true. The fix: include enough representative range that the reader gets an honest picture. Pair the big verdicts with more typical results.
Omitting context. A settlement figure without case context — what kind of injury, what the liability picture looked like, what made this case what it was — can be misleading. Even brief context (“Catastrophic injury, multiple defendants, clear liability”) helps the reader and helps you stay on the right side of the rules.
Implying guarantees. “We routinely secure six-figure settlements” reads as a promise. “Representative outcomes from our last three years of personal injury practice” reads as fact. The phrasing matters.
Related reading: case result pages and SEO, case result disclaimers, and E-E-A-T signals for law firm pages.