Oregon rules
Can an Oregon law firm pay for personal injury leads, and what must its ads say?
Oregon files nothing and allows solicitation by any means with three limits, but a statute makes paying anyone for referring an injury claim a crime.
By Santiago Alvarez, Founder, Ad Hoc Digital
Last updated
The short answer
If you read one part of this page, read this.
Carefully. The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, published by the Oregon State Bar and marked "as effective September 3, 2026", allow paying "the reasonable costs of advertisements" (RPC 7.2(b)(1)). A state statute goes further than the rules: ORS 9.505 says no person shall pay or accept money "for referring to an attorney any claim for damage resulting from personal injury or death", and ORS 9.990 sets a fine of up to $1,000, up to a year in county jail, or both, on conviction.
The rules themselves are short. Nothing is filed. Every ad includes "the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content" (RPC 7.2(c)). RPC 7.3 bans solicitation "by any means" in only three cases: the person can't judge reasonably, has said no, or faces coercion, duress or harassment.
Oregon dropped its "Advertising Material" label in 2017 and its specialist rule, 7.4, now reads "[RESERVED]". 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
Oregon's ad rules are RPC 7.1 to 7.5, backed by five sections of the State Bar Act.
Under ORS 9.490 the Bar's board of governors, with the house of delegates' approval, drafts the rules and the Oregon Supreme Court adopts them. Instead of comments, Oregon prints each rule's amendment history and a note comparing it with the old Oregon Code.
| Rule | What it covers | Marketing effect |
|---|---|---|
| RPC 7.1 | No false or misleading communication (ABA Model Rule language since January 1, 2014) | The single content test; Oregon dropped its old list of banned ad types |
| RPC 7.2 | Advertising media, paying for recommendations, required contact line (last amended January 13, 2020) | A responsible lawyer or firm with contact information in every ad |
| RPC 7.3 | Solicitation "by any means" barred in three cases (last amended January 11, 2018) | No set ban on calls or visits, and no label on letters |
| RPC 7.4 | "[RESERVED]" | No specialist rule; RPC 7.1 decides |
| RPC 7.5 | Firm names, trade names, multi-state firms, "Of Counsel" (typographical correction September 3, 2026) | A trade name can't suggest a tie to a government agency or a charitable legal service |
| ORS 9.500, 9.520 | Nonlawyers soliciting injury claims; lawyers accepting claims from them | Class A violation; contracts and fee deals with solicitors are void |
| ORS 9.505, 9.510 | Paying for injury or death referrals; lawyers soliciting at hospitals or using runners | Under ORS 9.990, a 9.505 conviction carries up to $1,000 and a year in jail |
The newest entry in Part 7 is the September 3, 2026 correction of a typographical error in RPC 7.5(e); the last change in substance was the 2020 nominal gift exception. Our ABA Model Rules guide explains the national text Oregon now tracks.
Filing and review
Oregon doesn't file, pre-approve or charge for ads; formal ethics opinions answer the hard questions.
No Oregon rule requires submitting an ad, and RPC 7.2 has no record keeping clause. The Bar's Board of Governors approves formal ethics opinions, listed with their subjects on osbar.org.
- No filing or fee
No rule sends an ad to the Bar, and there is no review fee or waiting period.
- No set label
The 2017 amendment deleted the requirement to put "Advertising Material" on advertising, so targeted letters and emails carry no required marking.
- Formal opinions
The Bar's table of contents lists opinions under "Information about Legal Services". Check the bracketed status: 2005-127 on writing to accident victims and 2007-180 on internet referral fees both read "Withdrawn 2018".
- Your own archive
With no record rule, the firm's own files are the only proof of what an ad said. We keep each version with its run dates for every Oregon account.
For a nearby state where paid ads are filed with the State Bar, see our Nevada guide.
What every ad must include
Every Oregon ad names a responsible lawyer or firm and gives contact information, and firm names follow RPC 7.5.
RPC 7.2(c) is the one fixed content item. Since January 1, 2017 it asks for "contact information" in place of an "office address".
- Responsible lawyer (7.2(c)): "the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content." Formal Opinion 2021-196 applies it to a mailed flyer.
- Trade names (7.5(a)): allowed if the name doesn't imply a connection with a government agency or a public or charitable legal services organization.
- Multi-state firms (7.5(b)): lawyers listed for an office show the limits on those not licensed in that office's jurisdiction.
- Public office (7.5(c)): a lawyer holding public office drops out of the firm name and its communications during any substantial period of not actively and regularly practicing there.
- Titles (Formal Opinion 2005-31): a receptionist answering "Judge _____'s office" or "Senator _____'s office" violates RPC 7.1 and RPC 8.4(a)(5).
- Partnerships and "Of Counsel" (7.5(d) and (e)): a partnership is claimed only when it's a fact, and "Of Counsel" needs a continuing professional relationship.
In a search ad, the firm's name plus a phone number or web address, in the text or its assets, carries the 7.2(c) line. Our ad copy rules guide covers fitting required lines into short formats.
Results, testimonials and reviews
Oregon tests results and testimonials only under RPC 7.1, and treats replies to bad reviews as a confidentiality risk.
The Comparison note to RPC 7.1 says Oregon kept "the essential prohibition against false or misleading communications, but not the specifically enumerated types" its old Code banned.
| Content | Oregon's position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Results, verdicts and testimonials | No special rule; they fail only if they contain a material misrepresentation or omit a fact needed to avoid misleading | RPC 7.1 |
| Promises about outcomes in mailers | Avoid statements that "could be understood to promise a particular result or foster unreasonable expectations" | Formal Opinion 2021-196 |
| Paying for a recommendation | Not allowed beyond ad costs, plans, referral services, buying a practice and nominal gifts | RPC 7.2(b) |
| Thank-you gifts to people who refer | Allowed as a token, but not as payment for the referral | RPC 7.2(b)(4); Formal Opinion 2005-73 |
| Replying to a negative review | "Posting any response to negative online criticism is risky" under RPC 1.6, and the self-defense exception applies "sparingly, if at all" | Formal Opinion 2022-201 |
Opinion 2022-201 relies on In re Conry (2021), where the Oregon Supreme Court found a lawyer's replies to a client's reviews revealed information he didn't reasonably believe necessary. A short, polite reply that reveals nothing about the matter is the safe default. Our guide to asking for reviews covers requests, and our testimonials guide compares states.
Specialist and certified
Oregon has no specialist rule, so "specialist" and "certified" are judged only as true or misleading.
RPC 7.4 reads "[RESERVED]". None of the Bar's formal opinions we opened addresses specialist titles, so RPC 7.1 is the whole test.
- "Specialist": allowed only if it isn't a material misrepresentation and doesn't leave out a fact that makes it misleading.
- "Certified": name the certifying body, because a certification nobody can look up invites the omission problem in RPC 7.1.
The certifier advice is our practice, not an Oregon rule. Washington's comments do require the certifier's name, and Hawaii's rule adds a set sentence about its court's certification program.
Direct contact and paying for leads
Oregon's rules allow calls and visits, but the State Bar Act limits injury solicitation and paid injury referrals.
Since January 11, 2018, RPC 7.3 has had no separate limit on in-person, telephone or real-time contact. ORS 9.500 to 9.520 still apply, and they were written about personal injury.
- RPC 7.3's three limits
A lawyer shall not solicit "by any means" when the lawyer knows or should know the person can't exercise reasonable judgment in hiring a lawyer, the person has said they don't want to be solicited, or the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.
- How the Bar reads it (Opinion 2021-196)
A flyer to every owner in a building with a defect claim was allowed, and so was one follow-up call. An email the same day to an owner who had said "don't bother me again!" was a "clear violation" of RPC 7.3.
- Injury solicitation (ORS 9.510)
The statute says "No attorney shall solicit business at factories, mills, hospitals or other places", or retain runners or solicitors, to obtain injury business. Opinion 2021-196 says a call is allowed only if it isn't for that purpose.
- Paid injury referrals (ORS 9.505)
No person may offer, pay or accept money or other consideration "for referring to an attorney any claim for damage resulting from personal injury or death". ORS 9.515 allows referrals and fee division between licensees of the bar; ORS 9.990 sets a fine of up to $1,000, up to a year in county jail, or both.
- Nonlawyer solicitors (ORS 9.500 and 9.520)
A nonlawyer may not solicit injury claims or litigation, and a lawyer may not accept a claim from such a solicitor. Both are a Class A violation, and fee agreements between lawyer and solicitor are void.
- What RPC 7.2 lets you pay for
The reasonable costs of ads, the usual charges of a legal service plan or lawyer referral service, buying a practice, and nominal gifts. The printed rule has no lead generator exception, and the Bar's 2007 opinion on internet referral fees is withdrawn.
ORS 9.505 doesn't say whether a vendor paid for each injury claim it sends is paid "for referring" that claim, and RPC 7.2(b)(1) separately allows "the reasonable costs of advertisements". Where a per-lead or per-case deal for injury matters falls is a question to put to the Bar before signing. Our paying for leads guide compares states, and Washington has a similar statute on insurance claim referrals.
Channel by channel
How Oregon's rules and ORS 9.505 apply to search ads, Local Services Ads, social and AI search content.
RPC 7.2(a) covers "written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media", so every channel below is in scope. What differs is how you pay.
| Channel | What the rule means there | The rule |
|---|---|---|
| Google search ads | Paying per click is an advertising cost; the firm name and a contact route appear in the ad or its assets | RPC 7.2(b)(1), 7.2(c) |
| Local Services Ads | For injury categories, check how you're charged against ORS 9.505 before launch, and keep the profile accurate | ORS 9.505; RPC 7.1 |
| Facebook and Instagram ads | Lead forms run as the firm's own ads; buying finished injury leads from a third party is an ORS 9.505 question for the Bar | RPC 7.2(b); ORS 9.505 |
| Social posts and messages | Posts are advertising; a direct message stops after a no, and replies to reviews reveal nothing about the matter | RPC 7.3(b); Opinion 2022-201 |
| Website and AI search content | Pages, FAQs and bios that AI search tools quote must not mislead; a site chatbot can create RPC 7.1 and 7.3(a) risk, so a lawyer reviews what it says | RPC 7.1; Formal Opinion 2026-208 |
Our Local Services Ads vs Google Ads guide explains how each program bills, the fact to have in hand when asking the Bar about ORS 9.505. Our social media rules guide covers messaging on social platforms.
What we check
Our Oregon review starts with how every lead is paid for, then the copy.
When we review an Oregon firm's ads, we check the billing basis of every paid source before reading the copy, because ORS 9.505 is about money paid "for referring" an injury claim.
List every paid source
Platforms, directories, lead vendors and referral partners, each with how it charges.
Flag injury referrals
Per-lead or per-case deals for injury and wrongful death matters get flagged for the firm to raise with the Bar before they continue.
Put the contact line in every format
A responsible lawyer or firm name and contact information in each ad, post and landing page, per RPC 7.2(c).
Test the claims
Results, comparisons and "specialist" wording stay only where the facts support them.
Set follow-up limits
Intake calls and texts stop for good once a person says no, and review replies say nothing about the client's matter.
One case study, $1.5 Million From a Niche No One Was Targeting, came from Facebook and Instagram ads, and the amount is the firm's result, not an ad claim. Our Meta ads service builds instant form campaigns that run under the firm's own name. For that practice, see our personal injury marketing page. For the state to the south, compare California's rules.
Common mistakes
Where firms go wrong.
Oregon mistakes we look for in accounts firms bring to us.
Paying per signed injury case
ORS 9.505 bars paying anyone for referring an injury or death claim to a lawyer, and ORS 9.990 sets a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail, so any per-case injury deal goes to the Bar first.
An ad with no responsible lawyer or firm
RPC 7.2(c) requires the name and contact information of at least one responsible lawyer or law firm in every communication.
Messaging after a no
RPC 7.3(b) bars soliciting someone who has said they don't want it, and Opinion 2021-196 found a same-day email after a refusal a clear violation.
Arguing with a former client in a review reply
Formal Opinion 2022-201 warns that revealing information about the matter in a reply risks violating RPC 1.6.
Using a public title to answer the phone
Formal Opinion 2005-31 says "Judge" or "Senator" in a private office's greeting violates RPC 7.1 and RPC 8.4(a)(5).
Real results
What this looked like for real firms.
Published results from injury, employment and family law firms, none of them described by 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 Oregon lawyers have to file their ads?
No. RPC 7.1 to 7.5 have no filing, fee or review step. Every ad does need the name and contact information of a responsible lawyer or firm under RPC 7.2(c).
Can an Oregon firm buy personal injury leads?
Be careful. ORS 9.505 makes it an offense to pay or accept money for referring an injury or death claim to a lawyer. Paying for ad space or clicks is an advertising cost under RPC 7.2(b)(1); paying per referred claim is the question to take to the Bar first.
Can I call or text someone who might need a lawyer in Oregon?
RPC 7.3 allows it unless the person can't judge reasonably, has said no, or the contact involves coercion, duress or harassment. For injury matters, ORS 9.510 separately bars soliciting at hospitals and other places and using runners.
Do Oregon solicitation letters need an "Advertising Material" label?
No. A January 1, 2017 amendment deleted that requirement from RPC 7.3. The letter still needs the RPC 7.2(c) contact line.
Can an Oregon lawyer say "specialist"?
No rule addresses it: RPC 7.4 is reserved. The claim has to be true and not misleading under RPC 7.1, so it needs a factual basis the firm could show.
Can I respond to a bad online review in Oregon?
Carefully. Formal Opinion 2022-201 says posting any response is risky, that confirming or adding information about the matter can violate RPC 1.6, and that the self-defense exception will rarely apply to a review.
How does Oregon compare with Washington and other states?
Our Washington guide covers a similar any-means solicitation rule with no required contact line, and our Alaska guide covers a state that still bans live solicitation. The state-by-state list shows filing rules everywhere.
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. Amendment dates come from the history lines printed in the Bar's rules PDF. The Supreme Court's orders amending the rules from December 2025 to September 2026 don't change Rules 7.1 to 7.5. Platforms and rules change, so check the current version before you act on any of it. This is marketing guidance, not legal advice.
- Oregon State Bar, Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (as effective September 3, 2026), Rules 7.1 to 7.6
- Oregon State Bar, Rules and Regulations
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Ethics Opinions table of contents
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2021-196: Rule 7.3 Solicitation of Clients
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2022-201: Responding to Negative Online Comments and Reviews
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2005-73: Acceptance of Referrals (revised 2021)
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2005-31: Improper Use of Titles (revised 2015)
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications
- Oregon State Legislature, ORS chapter 9 (2025 Edition): ORS 9.500 to 9.520 and 9.990
- Oregon Supreme Court and Chief Justice Orders (collection linked from the Bar's Rules and Regulations page)
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.