Arizona rules
What is left of Arizona's lawyer advertising rules, and can an Arizona firm now pay for referrals?
Since 2021 Arizona has two advertising rules, no filing, no 30-day letter wait and no ban on fee sharing, but a criminal statute still covers accident scenes.
By Santiago Alvarez, Founder, Ad Hoc Digital
Last updated
The short answer
If you read one part of this page, read this.
Arizona lawyer advertising is governed by Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, and only two of its information rules still have text: ER 7.1 (no false or misleading communication) and ER 7.3 (solicitation). Order R-20-0030 rewrote ERs 7.1 to 7.5 effective January 1, 2021, and ERs 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 now read "[Reserved]". Nothing is filed with the State Bar, and every ad names a responsible lawyer or firm with contact information (ER 7.1(c)).
The same reform abrogated ER 5.4, so Arizona has no ethical rule against sharing fees with nonlawyers, but a firm with nonlawyer owners or decision-makers needs an Alternative Business Structure license under ACJA 7-209. A "certified specialist" claim must meet Rule 44's requirements (ER 7.1(b)).
Live person-to-person solicitation stays banned (ER 7.3(b)), and A.R.S. 13-2924 makes paid solicitation of tort victims at an accident scene a class 1 misdemeanor. This is a plain summary for marketing planning, not legal advice. Check the current rule with your bar or law society. We work with law firms across the US and Canada, and also in Australia and the UK.
Which rules apply
Arizona's marketing rules now fit in ER 7.1 and ER 7.3 of Rule 42, plus Rule 44 for specialists.
The Arizona Court Rules on Westlaw list ERs 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 as reserved and show the rules current through October 1, 2026.
| Rule | What it covers | Marketing effect |
|---|---|---|
| ER 7.1 | No false or misleading communication; (b) certified specialist claims; (c) name and contact information | Every ad, post and page names a responsible lawyer or firm and a way to reach them |
| ERs 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 | "[Reserved]" since January 1, 2021 | No separate Arizona text on fee ads, fields of practice or letterheads; firm names moved into comment [4] to ER 7.1 |
| ER 7.3 | Solicitation: live person-to-person contact, people who said no, coercion | Targeted letters and emails carry no required label and no waiting period under the rule |
| ER 5.4 | "Abrogated Aug. 27, 2020, effective Jan. 1, 2021" | No ethical rule bars sharing fees with nonlawyers; nonlawyer owners need an ABS license (Order R-20-0034) |
| Rule 44 | Legal specialization through the State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization | The route ER 7.1(b) requires for any "certified specialist" claim |
| ACJA 7-209 | Licensing of Alternative Business Structures | Firms with nonlawyer owners advertise under Rule 42 too |
Order R-20-0030, filed August 27, 2020, amended ERs 7.1 through 7.5 "and associated comments" effective January 1, 2021. The newest change to the advertising rules on the Court's amendments list is Order R-22-0001, which put "or retired" back into comment [4] to ER 7.1, effective January 1, 2023. Our ABA Model Rules guide covers the national text Rule 42 started from.
Filing and review
Arizona doesn't file or pre-approve lawyer ads; a formal ethics opinion is the only official review.
Neither ER 7.1 nor ER 7.3 asks for filing, a fee or a copy of each ad. Before 2021, ER 7.3 required a copy of each targeted letter to go to the State Bar; the R-20-0030 attachment strikes that paragraph.
Write the request
Under Rule 42.1(e), a State Bar member, or the Compliance Lawyer of an Alternative Business Structure, sends a written request to Committee staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts, Certification and Licensing Division, with a letter or memorandum on the facts and issues.
Ask about future conduct only
Rule 42.1(c) bars opinions on past conduct, and the Committee gives no informal advisory opinions, so the request has to describe a campaign before it runs.
Allow for public comment and review
Proposed opinions are posted for at least 90 days of comment, then filed with the Supreme Court, which has 90 days to act (Rule 42.1(h) and (i)).
Keep the final opinion
Rule 42.1(l): "Reliance on a final Committee opinion may be raised as a defense in any discipline proceeding."
That takes months, so it suits a new business model, not a weekly search ad. Otherwise the review is the firm's own, and no current rule sets how long to keep copies. Compare Nevada, where ads are filed with the State Bar within 15 days.
What every ad must include
An Arizona ad needs one responsible lawyer or firm and a way to contact them, and nothing in it can mislead.
ER 7.1(c) reads: "Any communication made pursuant to this Rule shall include the name and contact information for at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content."
- Contact information (comment [9] to ER 7.1, which R-22-0001 left unchanged): a website address, a telephone number, an email address or a physical office location. One of them is enough.
- Firm names (comment [4] to ER 7.1, as amended by R-22-0001): current members, deceased or retired members where the firm's identity continues, or a trade name that isn't false or misleading. A distinctive website address or social media username may identify the firm.
- Names that mislead (comment [4]): implying a link to a government agency, a nonlawyer, an unconnected lawyer or a legal aid group. A trade name with a place name may need a statement that the firm isn't a public legal aid organization.
- Fees: the old ER 7.2(d) rules on contingency and fee-range ads were struck in 2021, so no Arizona rule now dictates fee wording. A "no fee" line that hides the client's costs can still be a misleading omission under ER 7.1(a).
- Firms with nonlawyer owners (ACJA 7-209, K.1.d): an ABS must not take any action that "misleads or attempts to mislead a client, a court, or others", including through its members or employees.
A short ad usually meets ER 7.1(c) through the firm name and its landing page or call extension. Our ad copy rules guide covers fitting required lines into short formats.
Results, testimonials and dramatizations
Arizona judges results, reviews and staged scenes by one test: would a reasonable person be misled?
ER 7.1(a) treats a communication as false or misleading if it misstates fact or law or "omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading". Arizona has no separate rule on testimonials or actors.
| Content | How the rule and its comment treat it | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Verdicts and settlements | Truthful results can mislead if they suggest other clients will get the same outcome without reference to each case's factual and legal circumstances | ER 7.1(a) and comment |
| Comparisons with other firms | An unsubstantiated comparison of services or fees may mislead if it is specific enough to look provable | ER 7.1 comment |
| Client reviews and testimonials | No Arizona rule names them; each is judged as a communication about the lawyer's services | ER 7.1(a) |
| Actors and reenactments | Not addressed by name; a scene that implies a real client or case without saying otherwise risks a misleading impression | ER 7.1(a) |
| Answering a bad review | General replies are fine; confidential information only when specific, credible accusations could support criminal or disciplinary charges or a malpractice claim, and only as far as needed | Opinion EO-19-0010 |
Opinion EO-19-0010 notes that most other opinions reach the opposite answer on revealing confidences. Our negative reviews guide shows how to write the general reply first, and our testimonials guide compares states that regulate reviews more closely.
Specialist and certified
"Specialist" can be a description in Arizona, but "certified specialist" needs Rule 44 certification.
ER 7.1(b) bars stating or implying that a lawyer "is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless the lawyer complies with Arizona Supreme Court Rule 44 requirements."
- Who certifies (Rule 44(b)): the State Bar of Arizona runs the program through a Board of Legal Specialization, under the Court's supervision. The State Bar's page says the Board certifies specialists in ten practice areas.
- The State Bar's own line: "Only lawyers who are certified by the Board of Legal Specialization or by a national entity accredited by the State Bar of Arizona may advertise themselves as Board-Certified Specialists in a particular field."
- Plain descriptions: comment [6] to ER 7.1 lets a lawyer say they "specialize" or "concentrate" based on experience or training, judged by the false and misleading test.
Direct contact and paying for leads
Arizona bans live solicitation, has no 30-day letter rule, and leaves referral payments to the fee and conflict rules.
ER 7.3(a) defines solicitation as a communication "directed to a specific person" the lawyer knows or should know needs legal services in a particular matter. A.R.S. 13-2924 adds a criminal rule for accident scenes.
- Live contact (ER 7.3(b))
No soliciting by "live person-to-person contact" for pecuniary gain, unless the person is a lawyer, has a family, close personal, or prior business or professional relationship with the lawyer or firm, or routinely uses that type of legal service for business.
- Every form (ER 7.3(c))
No solicitation of someone who has said they don't want it, and none involving coercion, duress or harassment.
- What 2021 removed
The R-20-0030 attachment strikes the old 30-day ban on personal injury and wrongful death solicitations, the "Advertising Material" label, and the copy sent to the State Bar.
- Accident scenes (A.R.S. 13-2924)
At the scene of an accident that may lead to a civil or criminal action or a tort claim, nobody may solicit a tort victim for compensation, pay someone else to do it, or accept pay for it. It's a class 1 misdemeanor, and the victim may void any contract obtained that way.
- Paying for referrals
With ER 7.2 reserved and ER 5.4 abrogated, no Arizona ethical rule bans paying for a recommendation. Comment [9] to ER 1.5, added effective January 1, 2023, says referral-only compensation "may be governed by ERs 1.5(a) and 1.7(a)(2)", the reasonable-fee and conflict rules.
The neighbours went the other way. Utah's guide covers a state that bans referral fees from November 1, 2026, and the New Mexico guide covers a 1949 statute that makes it a misdemeanor to take a share of a lawyer's fee for placing a damage claim. Our paying for leads guide compares other states.
Channel by channel
What Arizona's two rules mean for search ads, Local Services Ads, social media and AI search content.
ER 7.1 reaches every communication about a lawyer's services, so each channel below is covered, even though no Arizona rule names a platform.
| Channel | What the rule means there | The rule |
|---|---|---|
| Google search ads | The firm name plus a phone extension or landing page meets the contact rule; "certified" only with Rule 44 certification | ER 7.1(b), (c) |
| Local Services Ads | The profile is a communication about the firm, so its claims face the misleading test; what the firm pays the platform is an advertising cost that no Arizona ethical rule bars | ER 7.1(a) |
| Facebook and Instagram ads | Results and testimonials need context or qualifiers; a reenactment shouldn't imply a real client | ER 7.1(a) |
| Social media posts | A direct message to someone you know was just hurt is a written solicitation: allowed unless they've said no or it pressures them | ER 7.3(a), (c) |
| Website and AI search content | Pages and bios that AI search tools may quote carry the same name and contact duty, and results pages need case context | ER 7.1(a), (c) |
How the two Google programs charge is in our Local Services Ads vs Google Ads guide, and the content AI tools quote is what our AI search service writes.
What we check
Our Arizona review: claims first, then who the firm pays and who owns it.
When we review an Arizona firm's ads, we check every claim against ER 7.1 first, because with the other rules reserved, that single test carries almost all of Arizona's advertising law.
Confirm the contact line
Each ad, post and page shows a responsible lawyer or firm and one way to reach them.
Test every result
Settlement figures stay only with the case's facts beside them, or come out.
Check the specialist words
"Certified" or "board certified" appears only with Board of Legal Specialization or State Bar accredited certification.
Map the money
We list every lead source and referral partner the firm pays, so the firm's lawyers can test each against ERs 1.5(a) and 1.7(a)(2).
Plan outreach away from scenes
No calls or visits to strangers, and no paid canvassing at accident scenes.
One case study, $82,000 in Revenue From Just One Case, comes from an injury firm; the amount is the firm's result, not an ad claim. Our Meta ads service builds video campaigns inside rules like these. For that practice, see our personal injury marketing page. Firms also licensed next door can compare California's rules and the Colorado guide.
Common mistakes
Where firms go wrong.
Arizona mistakes we look for in accounts firms bring to us.
No contact line on short formats
ER 7.1(c) requires the name and contact information of at least one responsible lawyer or firm in any communication about the firm's services.
"Certified" without Rule 44
ER 7.1(b) bars implying certification as a specialist unless the lawyer meets Rule 44's requirements.
Bare settlement numbers
Under ER 7.1(a), a true result can mislead when it suggests other clients will get the same outcome, unless the case's circumstances are explained.
Paid canvassing at a crash
A.R.S. 13-2924 makes soliciting a tort victim at an accident scene for compensation, or paying someone to do it, a class 1 misdemeanor.
Real results
What this looked like for real firms.
Published injury, rideshare and immigration results, from firms whose case studies don't name their state.
Identifying details are anonymized to protect our clients. Individual result, not a promise or prediction of any specific outcome for your firm.
FAQ
Questions lawyers ask us.
Straight answers to the questions that come up most.
Do Arizona lawyers have to file their ads with the State Bar?
No. ERs 7.1 and 7.3 have no filing, fee or approval step. The former rule that sent a copy of targeted letters to the State Bar was struck effective January 1, 2021.
Is there a 30-day wait before contacting an accident victim in Arizona?
Not in the ethics rules since 2021; the 30-day solicitation ban was removed from ER 7.3. Live person-to-person solicitation is still banned, and A.R.S. 13-2924 bars paid solicitation of tort victims at the accident scene.
Can an Arizona lawyer pay for referrals or share fees with a nonlawyer?
ER 5.4 was abrogated effective January 1, 2021, and ER 7.2 is reserved, so no ethical rule bans either outright. Comment [9] to ER 1.5 says referral compensation may be governed by the reasonable-fee rule, ER 1.5(a), and the conflict rule, ER 1.7(a)(2). A firm that gives nonlawyers ownership or decision-making authority is a different matter: it needs an ABS license.
Can a company owned by nonlawyers advertise legal services in Arizona?
Only as a licensed Alternative Business Structure under ACJA 7-209, which defines an ABS as an entity with nonlawyers holding an economic interest or decision-making authority. Its code of conduct bars misleading clients or others, and its people must act as Rule 42 requires of lawyers.
Can an Arizona lawyer say "specialist"?
A lawyer may describe a focus, judged by the false and misleading test. A claim to be certified must meet Rule 44 (ER 7.1(b)); the State Bar says that means certification by its Board of Legal Specialization or by a national body it accredits.
How does Arizona compare with Nevada and other states?
Arizona has no filing at all, while Nevada files ads within 15 days. Our state-by-state list shows each jurisdiction's filing rule and what sets it apart.
Where we do this
The services this guide touches.
What this looks like when we run it for a firm, with a demo for your practice on each page.
Sources
Where these facts come from.
Official pages we read when writing this page. We read the comments to ERs 7.1 and 7.3 only in the 2020 and 2022 amendment orders, where the plain text doesn't show which words were struck, so we rely on comments that match the current rule text. We didn't open the State Bar's older ethics opinions or the Board of Legal Specialization's list of its ten areas. Platforms and rules change, so check the current version before you act on any of it. This is marketing guidance, not legal advice.
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, table of contents
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42, ER 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42, ER 7.2 [Reserved]
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42, ER 7.3 Solicitation of Clients
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42, ER 5.4 (abrogated effective January 1, 2021)
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 42.1 Ethics Advisory Committee
- Arizona Court Rules (Westlaw), Rule 44 Legal Specialization
- Arizona Supreme Court, Order R-20-0030 amending ERs 7.1 through 7.5 (effective January 1, 2021)
- Arizona Supreme Court, Order R-20-0034 abrogating ER 5.4 (effective January 1, 2021)
- Arizona Supreme Court, Order R-22-0001 amending comment [4] to ER 7.1 (effective January 1, 2023)
- Arizona Supreme Court, Order R-22-0022 adding comment [9] to ER 1.5 (effective January 1, 2023)
- Arizona Supreme Court, Recent Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court
- Arizona Supreme Court, Rule Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas
- Arizona Supreme Court, Ethics Advisory Committee
- Arizona Supreme Court Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion EO-19-0010 (responding to a former client's online comments)
- Arizona Supreme Court, Alternative Business Structures program
- Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, Section 7-209 Alternative Business Structures (amended effective March 18, 2026)
- State Bar of Arizona, Legal Specialization (Board of Legal Specialization)
- Arizona Legislature, A.R.S. 13-2924 Unlawful solicitation of tort victims
Written by
Founder of Ad Hoc Digital. Leads strategy and works directly with every client firm on AI search, Local Services Ads, Google Ads and Meta ads.
More about SantiagoWant a second pair of eyes on this?
Book a free 30-minute call. Tell us how cases come in today, and we'll tell you straight what we'd change, and whether we can help.