Virginia rules
Virginia has only two lawyer advertising rules: what do Rules 7.1 and 7.3 require?
Virginia runs lawyer advertising on two rules and a long ethics opinion. What's still banned, how results and reviews are judged, and why the bar's staff read your ads.
By Santiago Alvarez, Founder, Ad Hoc Digital
Last updated
The short answer
If you read one part of this page, read this.
Virginia has two lawyer advertising rules left: Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications) and Rule 7.3 (solicitation and paying for recommendations). Rules 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 were deleted, the last two on July 1, 2017, and their substance moved into the comments to Rule 7.1. Nothing is filed, but the Virginia State Bar's ethics staff monitor lawyer advertising and write to lawyers about problems they find.
The detail sits in Legal Ethics Opinion 1750, a compendium the Supreme Court of Virginia approved in 2018 and 2019. It treats "no recovery, no fee" as misleading when clients still owe costs, requires context for case results, bars unprovable words like "expert", and holds client testimonials to the same standard as the lawyer's own words. Targeted solicitations carry "ADVERTISING MATERIAL", and a state statute makes acting as a runner or capper a Class 1 misdemeanor.
We read the rules, the opinion and the statutes on the Virginia State Bar's and the General Assembly's sites on October 18, 2026. 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
Virginia's advertising rules are Rule 7.1, Rule 7.3, one compendium opinion and a runner statute.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are Part 6, Section II of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The Virginia State Bar publishes them; its complete edition is dated July 27, 2026.
| Rule or source | What it covers | Marketing effect |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 7.1 and comments [1] to [6] | False or misleading communications, results, specialization, firm names | One test for every ad, page and post |
| Rule 7.2 | Deleted by the amendments effective July 1, 2013 | No separate advertising rule |
| Rule 7.3 | Solicitation, the "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" label, paying for recommendations | Labels on targeted messages; limits on referral payments; lead generators allowed with conditions |
| Rules 7.4 and 7.5 | Deleted effective July 1, 2017; content moved into Rule 7.1's comments | Specialist and firm name rules live in comments [4] to [6] |
| LEO 1750 | The advertising compendium, Supreme Court approved October 2, 2019 | Actors, no-fee wording, results, testimonials, ratings, "specialist", "expert" |
| Code of Virginia 54.1-3939 to 3944 | Solicitation through runners and cappers | Class 1 misdemeanor; contracts obtained that way are void |
Two rules is an unusual structure; compare the baseline in our ABA Model Rules guide. The state-by-state view is in our rules by jurisdiction hub. The topic-by-topic view is in our lawyer advertising rules comparison.
Filing and review
Nothing is filed in Virginia, but the bar's ethics staff read lawyer ads anyway.
No rule requires filing or pre-approval. The Virginia State Bar's Legal Ethics page describes three things that work in its place.
- Staff monitoring
The page says Ethics Counsel and staff "proactively monitor and review lawyer advertising" and alert lawyers to violations or potential violations. Most lawyers make the requested changes; disagreements may go to the Committee and on to discipline.
- Legal ethics opinions (LEOs)
A Virginia lawyer may request a written advisory opinion from the Standing Committee on Legal Ethics. Because so many opinions exist, the Committee issues a new one only when earlier opinions don't settle the question; otherwise staff send a letter pointing to the earlier ones.
- The Ethics Hotline
Any Virginia lawyer may call or email the confidential hotline for informal ethics advice.
An adopted opinion goes to the bar's Council and the Supreme Court for approval, which is how LEO 1750 carries the Court's approval dates. When a firm asks us whether a new ad idea is safe in Virginia, LEO 1750 is the first document we read, then the hotline if it doesn't answer the question.
What every ad must include
Virginia's rules list no required ad content, so the misleading test does all the work.
With Rule 7.2 gone, no Virginia rule we read requires a lawyer's name, an office address or a label on general ads. Rule 7.1 still decides what an ad may leave out.
- Omissions (Rule 7.1): a communication is misleading if it "omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading."
- Firm names (comment [5]): trade names and a "distinctive website address" are allowed if not misleading; a name like "Springfield Legal Clinic" may need a disclaimer that it isn't a public legal aid agency.
- Offices (LEO 1750, section C): it's potentially misleading to advertise rented or shared office space that isn't actually where the lawyer provides legal services.
- Partnerships (comment [6]): lawyers sharing space may not call themselves "Smith and Jones" unless they practice together.
- Labels: "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" applies only to written, recorded or electronic solicitations under Rule 7.3(c), covered below.
No record-keeping rule exists either. We keep dated copies of every ad for Virginia firms anyway, because a staff letter or complaint asks what the ad said. Contrast Maryland, where every ad names a responsible lawyer and copies are kept three years; see our Maryland guide.
Results, testimonials and comparisons
LEO 1750 says case results need context, and client testimonials meet the lawyer's standard.
Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 says truthful results may mislead without context, and that "an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude" that finding. LEO 1750 applies it.
| Claim | Virginia's position | Where it says so |
|---|---|---|
| A verdict or settlement | Allowed with the context that keeps it honest: a verdict reduced by the court, or below a refused offer, must say so | LEO 1750, section F |
| Cumulative results ("millions for thousands") | Can mislead, because results depend on facts the ad leaves out | LEO 1750, section F |
| "Best", "most experienced", "biggest earnings" | Self-laudatory comparisons that can't be substantiated | LEO 1750, section F |
| Client testimonials | Same standard as the lawyer's own words: no results or comparisons; "soft endorsements" like "always returned phone calls" are fine | LEO 1750, section G |
| Listings such as "The Best Lawyers in America" | Allowed if accurate and not exaggerated; a pay-to-join credential is misleading | LEO 1750, section H |
| "No recovery, no fee" | Misleading if the client may still owe costs and expenses, unless that's explained | LEO 1750, section B |
| Actors | If the ad implies an actor is the firm's lawyer or client, disclose that it's an actor or a dramatization | LEO 1750, section A |
The testimonial position is strict. A five-star review that calls a lawyer "the best" makes a comparison, and LEO 1750 says a client's words get no more leeway than the lawyer's. Our guide to using testimonials compares states. How to request reviews is in asking for reviews.
"Expert", "specialist", "certified"
Virginia lawyers may say "specialist", but "expert" needs proof.
Comment [4] to Rule 7.1 carries what used to be Rule 7.4. LEO 1750, sections I and J, explain how it applies.
- "Specialist" (comment [4]): a lawyer who is a specialist by experience, specialized training or education may say so, if it isn't false or misleading.
- Certification (comment [4] and LEO 1750, section I): a lawyer "certified by a named professional entity" may say so. The 2017 changes dropped the old disclaimer that Virginia's Supreme Court recognizes no certifier; the certifying organization must be named, and must actually evaluate lawyers rather than certify anyone who pays.
- "Expert" and "expertise" (LEO 1750, section J): if the claim can't be factually substantiated, it's a misleading comparative statement and prohibited.
- Fields of practice (comment [4]): a lawyer may say they do or don't practice in particular fields.
So "Fairfax DUI specialist" can work for a lawyer whose practice backs it up, while "Fairfax's DUI expert" needs proof most firms can't give. Delaware and West Virginia handle the same words differently; see our West Virginia guide.
Direct contact and paying for clients
Virginia's Rule 7.3 labels solicitations and limits payments, and a statute bans runners.
Rule 7.3(a) defines a solicitation as a communication to a specific person known to need legal services in a particular matter, offering services for that matter.
- When solicitation is barred (7.3(b))
When the person has said they don't want to be solicited, or the solicitation involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits. Comment [3] says repeated efforts after an unanswered letter may be harassment. The rule's text has no separate ban on in-person or phone solicitation, unlike Maryland's and Delaware's rules.
- "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" (7.3(c))
Every written, recorded or electronic solicitation "shall conspicuously include" the words on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and end of a recorded or electronic message. Exceptions: lawyers, people with a family, personal or prior professional relationship, people who had prior contact with the lawyer, and court-ordered notices. Comment [2a] adds that earlier contact through advertising material doesn't remove the label.
- Paying for recommendations (7.3(d))
Allowed: reasonable advertising costs "including online group advertising", the usual charges of a legal service plan or not-for-profit qualified referral service, buying a practice, and nominal thank-you gifts.
- Lead generators (comment [4])
A lawyer may pay for leads if the generator doesn't recommend the lawyer, payment is consistent with Rule 5.4, and its communications meet Rule 7.1. It may not imply it's recommending you, referring for free, or analyzing the person's legal problem.
The Code of Virginia adds a criminal layer. Section 54.1-3941 makes it unlawful to act as a "runner" or "capper", meaning an agent soliciting employment for a lawyer. Section 54.1-3944 makes violations a Class 1 misdemeanor, 54.1-3942 voids contracts obtained that way, and 54.1-3943 allows injunctions. Our paying for leads guide covers where a vendor becomes a runner.
By channel
What Virginia's rules mean for each marketing channel.
No Virginia rule or opinion we read names Google, Meta or ChatGPT. LEO 1750 says Rule 7.1's ban on false or misleading advertising applies to all public communications, including the internet.
| Channel | What the rule means there | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Google search ads | No required name or label; headlines can't claim "best" or "expert" without proof; no-fee lines explain costs | Rule 7.1; LEO 1750 |
| Local Services Ads | No Virginia rule or opinion we read mentions them; Google shows reviews, which LEO 1750 holds to the same standard as the firm's claims | Rule 7.1; LEO 1750, section G |
| Facebook and Instagram ads | Actors portraying the firm's lawyers or clients need a disclosure; results need context | LEO 1750, sections A and F |
| Social media posts | A DM offering services to someone known to need help in a matter is a solicitation and carries the label | Rule 7.3(a), (c) |
| Website and AI search content | Case result pages need the context LEO 1750 describes; FAQs and posts that ChatGPT and Google's AI answers quote must hold up out of context | Rule 7.1 comment [2] |
That last row is why we write results pages for AI search with the context in the same sentence as the number. An AI answer that lifts "$1.2 million verdict" without the court's reduction repeats a statement LEO 1750 says must carry it. Our guide on showing up in ChatGPT explains how those answers get assembled.
What we check
When we review a Virginia firm's ads, we read them against LEO 1750, section by section.
Virginia's short rules make the opinion the checklist. These are the steps we run.
Strip unprovable words
"Best", "top", "most experienced" and "expert" come out unless the firm can substantiate them, including inside reviews it quotes.
Add context to every result
Each verdict or settlement either stands complete as stated or gets the fact that changes its meaning.
Fix the fee line
"No recovery, no fee" stays only if the firm has decided costs are contingent too; otherwise the costs sentence goes beside it.
Check people on screen
Actors portraying lawyers or clients get a disclosure.
Label outreach
Any targeted email, text or letter carries "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" at the start and end, and stops after no response.
Plain claims still sell. One injury firm's case study is $82,000 in Revenue From Just One Case. A real estate firm's search ads are in $10,875 Generated In Just The First Week. Those are the firms' results, not ad claims. We build Virginia search campaigns in Google Ads with LEO 1750 open beside the copy.
Common mistakes
Where firms go wrong.
The Virginia mistakes we see most when firms bring us their ads.
Quoting reviews that say "the best"
LEO 1750, section G, says client statements meet the same standard as the lawyer's: no unprovable comparisons.
"No recovery, no fee" when costs are owed
LEO 1750, section B, treats it as misleading unless the client's liability for costs is explained.
Calling the firm "experts"
LEO 1750, section J, treats an unsubstantiated "expert" claim as a prohibited misleading comparison.
Unlabeled follow-up emails
Rule 7.3(c) requires "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" on electronic solicitations, and comment [2a] says earlier ad contact doesn't remove it.
Paying a vendor per signed case it "refers"
Rule 7.3(d) and comment [4] allow lead payments only when the vendor doesn't recommend you; a runner arrangement can also be a crime under Code 54.1-3941.
Real results
What this looked like for real firms.
Results from ads and pages built on claims a Virginia reviewer couldn't fault.
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.
Does Virginia require filing lawyer ads?
No. No Virginia rule requires filing or pre-approval. The Virginia State Bar's ethics staff monitor lawyer advertising and write to lawyers about potential violations, and a lawyer may request an advisory opinion or call the Ethics Hotline.
Why doesn't Virginia have a Rule 7.2?
The amendments effective July 1, 2013 deleted Rule 7.2, and the 2017 amendments deleted Rules 7.4 and 7.5 and moved their substance into the comments to Rule 7.1. Payment rules now sit in Rule 7.3(d).
Can Virginia lawyers advertise case results?
Yes, if the result isn't misleading in context. LEO 1750 gives examples: a verdict reduced to a statutory cap must say so, and a verdict below a refused settlement offer needs that fact. A complete, true statement, like a dismissal after winning a motion to suppress, needs no disclaimer.
Can Virginia lawyers use client testimonials?
Yes, within limits. LEO 1750 says testimonials about results or comparisons are held to the same standard as the lawyer's own statements, while "soft endorsements" about service, such as returned phone calls, are allowed.
Can Virginia lawyers pay for leads?
Comment [4] to Rule 7.3 allows paying for leads if the generator doesn't recommend the lawyer, payment is consistent with Rule 5.4, and its communications meet Rule 7.1. Separately, Code 54.1-3941 bars anyone from acting as a runner or capper.
Is in-person solicitation allowed in Virginia?
Rule 7.3's text doesn't ban it outright, unlike neighboring Maryland. It's barred when the person has said no or it involves harassment, undue influence, coercion or similar pressure, and Code 54.1-3940 makes it unlawful to solicit "in a manner that violates the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility." Our Maryland guide shows the stricter approach across the Potomac.
Do Virginia rules apply to a DC firm advertising in Northern Virginia?
Virginia's rules govern Virginia lawyers and their ads. A firm with lawyers licensed in both places checks its ads against both. The District's own single rule is in our DC guide.
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. Platforms and rules change, so check the current version before you act on any of it. This is marketing guidance, not legal advice.
- Virginia State Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct, Part 6, Section II (Rules 7.1 to 7.5)
- Virginia State Bar, Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, complete edition (July 27, 2026)
- Virginia State Bar, Legal Ethics (Standing Committee, LEOs, Ethics Hotline, advertising review)
- Virginia State Bar, LEO 1750, Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (Supreme Court approved October 2, 2019)
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3939, Definitions (runners and cappers)
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3940, Solicitation
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3941, Unlawful to act as runners or cappers
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3942, Validity of contract
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3943, Injunction against running, capping and soliciting
- Code of Virginia 54.1-3944, Penalty for violation
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.