Washington rules
Can a Washington lawyer solicit clients by phone or in person, and what do the ad rules still require?
Washington cut its ad rules down to RPC 7.1 and 7.3 in 2021. Solicitation is allowed with four exceptions, and paid claim referrals can be a crime.
By Santiago Alvarez, Founder, Ad Hoc Digital
Last updated
The short answer
If you read one part of this page, read this.
Yes, within limits. Since January 2021 the Supreme Court of Washington has kept only two working marketing rules: RPC 7.1, which bans false or misleading communications, and RPC 7.3, which says a lawyer "may solicit professional employment" unless one of four exceptions applies. RPC 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 are now marked reserved. Nothing is filed, no label is required on ads or letters, and the rules we read set no record keeping period.
The detail is in the comments. Comment [8] to RPC 7.1 lets a lawyer say "specialist" if it's true and not misleading, but a certification claim must name the certifier. Comment [14] to RPC 7.3 allows paid lead generators only if they don't recommend the lawyer. The newest change, Order No. 25700-A-1628 (dated April 2, 2025), rewrote the referral service exception in 7.3(b)(2).
A statute adds a criminal line: RCW 48.30A.015 calls paying for the referral of an insurance claimant "trafficking in insurance claims". 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
Washington's marketing rules come down to RPC 7.1, RPC 7.3 and their comments, plus two statutes.
The Supreme Court of Washington adopts the Rules of Professional Conduct and posts each rule as a PDF on courts.wa.gov. The newest change to the advertising rules is the April 29, 2025 amendment to RPC 7.3 and its Comment 15.
| Rule | What it covers | Marketing effect |
|---|---|---|
| RPC 7.1 | One sentence banning false or misleading communications, with Washington comments [5] to [14] on advertising, specialists and firm names | The only content test for every ad, page and post |
| RPC 7.2 | "[RESERVED.]", last amended January 26, 2021 | No separate advertising rule, so no required name and address line in the rule text |
| RPC 7.3(a) | Solicitation is allowed unless false or misleading, aimed at someone who can't judge reasonably, unwanted, or coercive | Calls, messages and visits are allowed within those four limits |
| RPC 7.3(b) | No payment for recommending a lawyer, with five exceptions, including ads and "online group advertising" | Ads and compliant lead generators can be paid for |
| RPC 7.4 and 7.5 | Both marked reserved since January 2021 | Specialist wording and firm names now sit in the comments to RPC 7.1 |
| RCW 48.30A.015 | Paying or accepting payment for referring an insurance claimant to a service provider | A gross misdemeanor, then a class C felony for later violations |
| RCW 2.48.180(2)(e) | A nonlawyer sharing legal fees with a lawyer is unlawful practice of law | Marketing deals paid as a share of fees carry criminal risk unless the RPCs authorize them |
Order No. 25700-A-1628 changed RPC 1.5, 5.4 and 7.3 together on the WSBA ethics committee's recommendation. The WSBA's list of recent amendments, updated October 7, 2026, shows nothing newer touching Part 7. For the national model text, see our ABA Model Rules guide.
Filing and review
Washington has no filing, no fee and no review board for ads; guidance comes from the WSBA.
No Washington rule asks a lawyer to submit an ad before or after it runs. With RPC 7.2 reserved, the rule text we read also has no record keeping requirement for ads.
- What Washington doesn't ask for
No submission, fee, waiting period, "Advertising Material" label or set period for keeping copies. Connecticut, by contrast, files most ads and keeps a three-year archive, so a plan built for a filing state carries steps Washington doesn't need.
- Where guidance comes from
The WSBA's Committee on Professional Ethics issues advisory opinions, and its Professional Responsibility Counsel answer member questions on the Ethics Line. The WSBA says its ethics opinions are "advisory only" and the Supreme Court "is the ultimate arbiter" of the rules.
- What we keep anyway
A grievance can arrive long after a campaign ends, so we keep a dated copy of every ad version, landing page and post a Washington firm runs.
For a nearby state that does file ads, compare our Nevada guide, where most ads go to the State Bar.
What every ad must include
Washington sets no fixed content list, so every ad is judged on whether it could mislead.
RPC 7.1 makes a communication misleading if it misstates a fact or law or "omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading". The comments explain what that means in practice.
- What you may say (comment [6]): name or firm name, address, email, website and phone; the kinds of services you take; how fees are set, including prices and payment arrangements; foreign language ability; and, with consent, names of clients regularly represented.
- Licensing limits (comment [14]): a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction that identifies lawyers by office should show the limits on those not licensed where the office is.
- Firm and trade names (comments [10] and [11]): trade names are acceptable if not misleading, but lawyers who only share an office can't call themselves "Smith and Jones".
- LLLT services (comment [9]): an ad for a limited license legal technician says the license covers only particular fields.
So no rule requires a name and address in a search ad, but leaving out a fact the reader needs, such as that the lawyer isn't licensed in Washington, can still fail RPC 7.1. Our ad copy rules guide covers short formats.
Results, testimonials and endorsements
Washington allows results and testimonials if they don't build unjustified expectations, and bars paying for endorsements.
Comment [3] to RPC 7.1 says a truthful report of past results may mislead if it leads a reasonable person to expect the same result "without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case".
| Content | Washington's position | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Verdicts and settlements | Allowed if not presented so a reader expects the same outcome; an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language "may preclude" a finding that it misleads | RPC 7.1, comment [3] |
| Comparisons with other lawyers | Misleading if so specific a reader would think they can be substantiated when they can't | RPC 7.1, comment [3] |
| Paying for a review or endorsement | A recommendation is anything that "endorses or vouches for" a lawyer, and paying for one isn't among the exceptions | RPC 7.3(b); comment [14] |
| Thank-you gifts | Nominal gifts are allowed if not intended or expected as compensation for recommending the lawyer | RPC 7.3(b)(5) |
Client quotes answer to the same misleading test as anything else. Our testimonials guide shows how other states handle them, and our guide to asking for reviews covers review requests.
Specialist and certified
A Washington lawyer may say "specialist" if it's true, but a certification claim has to name an approved certifier.
Since RPC 7.4 was reserved, Washington comment [8] to RPC 7.1 carries the specialist rules. It says a lawyer is "generally permitted" to say "specialist", "specialty" or "specializes in", subject to the misleading standard.
- Specialist wording: allowed, but tested under RPC 7.1, so it needs a factual basis the firm could show.
- Certified: only if the certification comes from an organization approved by an appropriate state authority, or accredited by the American Bar Association or by another organization the state authority has approved for that purpose.
- The certifier's name: comment [8] says it "must be included in any communication regarding the certification".
So "Seattle DUI specialist" can run if it's accurate, while "board certified" with no certifier named can't. Alaska's rule bans the word "specialist" outright unless an ABA-accredited body certified the lawyer.
Direct contact and paying for leads
Washington allows solicitation by any means, but the four exceptions and two statutes still bite.
RPC 7.3 starts from permission: "A lawyer may solicit professional employment unless" one of four conditions applies. Comment [12] allows solicitation "by any means and in all contexts" subject to them.
- The four exceptions (7.3(a))
No solicitation that is false or misleading; aimed at someone whose physical, emotional or mental state means they can't exercise reasonable judgment in hiring a lawyer; aimed at someone who has said they don't want to be solicited; or involving coercion, duress or harassment.
- What crosses the line (comment [10])
The Court's examples: early morning or late-night calls, repeated calls, contacting an accident victim or family shortly after the accident or during medical distress, and approaching people facing incarceration near a courthouse.
- What isn't solicitation (comment [1])
A billboard, an Internet banner ad, a website or a TV commercial aimed at the general public, a reply to a request for information, and messages "automatically generated in response to Internet searches".
- Agents count (comment [11])
The limits reach employees, agents and anyone acting for the lawyer, so a call center or intake vendor works under the same four exceptions.
- Lead generators (comment [14])
Paying for leads is allowed if the generator doesn't recommend the lawyer, payment fits RPC 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its messages meet RPC 7.1. A generator can't imply it is recommending the lawyer, referring for free, or has analyzed the person's legal problem.
- Trafficking in insurance claims (RCW 48.30A.015)
Knowingly paying or accepting payment for referring a claimant to a service provider is a gross misdemeanor, then a class C felony. "Services" include "preparing, processing, presenting, or negotiating an insurance claim", and RCW 48.30A.030 adds civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.
- The statutory defenses (RCW 48.30A.020)
Defenses include conduct the RPCs authorize and buying advertising from an unrelated business that refers for ten or more unrelated providers.
RCW 2.48.180(2)(e) makes it unlawful practice of law for a nonlawyer to share legal fees with a lawyer, so a vendor paid a percentage of each case's fee faces a statute as well as RPC 5.4; the statute's defense in RCW 2.48.180(7) covers only conduct the RPCs authorize. Our paying for leads guide compares other states, and Oregon's rules add a criminal ban on paying for injury referrals.
Channel by channel
How Washington's two rules apply to search ads, Local Services Ads, social and AI search content.
Comment [7] to RPC 7.1 says banning television, Internet and other electronic advertising would impede the flow of information, so every channel is open and the test is the same: could this mislead, and is it a solicitation?
| Channel | What the rule means there | The rule |
|---|---|---|
| Google search ads | Results and comparisons need context; ads shown in response to a search aren't solicitations | RPC 7.1, comment [3]; RPC 7.3, comment [1] |
| Local Services Ads | Paying Google is a reasonable advertising cost; profile wording and badges can't suggest an endorsement the firm can't back up | RPC 7.3(b)(1); RPC 7.1 |
| Facebook and Instagram ads | Audience ads are general advertising; client videos can't promise the viewer the same outcome | RPC 7.1, comment [3] |
| Social posts and direct messages | A post is advertising, but a message to one person offering services is a solicitation and stops when they say no | RPC 7.3(a)(3); comment [1] |
| Website and AI search content | Pages, FAQs and bios that AI tools quote carry the specialist and certifier rules from comment [8] | RPC 7.1, comment [8] |
How the two Google programs charge is in our Local Services Ads vs Google Ads guide. Messaging prospects on social platforms is covered in our social media rules guide.
What we check
Our Washington review focuses on who gets contacted, how, and who gets paid for it.
When we review a Washington firm's ads, we check the intake and follow-up scripts first, because RPC 7.3 permits direct contact and the risk sits in how often and when it happens.
Read the follow-up rules
Follow-up stops the moment someone says no, and no calls go out early in the morning or late at night.
Map every paid source
Each lead vendor, directory and referral partner is listed with how it's paid, and percentage-of-fee deals get flagged.
Test the claims
Results lines get case context or come out; comparisons stay only if the firm can back them up.
Check titles
"Specialist" stays only where the firm can show the basis; "certified" appears with the certifier's name or not at all.
One case study, $82,000 in Revenue From Just One Case, came from an injury firm, and the figure is the firm's result, not an ad claim. Our Local Services Ads service sets up profiles that fit rules like these. For that practice, see our personal injury marketing page. For another West Coast state, compare California's rules.
Common mistakes
Where firms go wrong.
Washington mistakes we look for in accounts firms bring to us.
One more call after a no
RPC 7.3(a)(3) bars soliciting someone who has told the lawyer they don't want it, and comment [11] applies that to anyone calling for the firm.
Calling accident victims while they're still in treatment
Comment [10] to RPC 7.3 lists contact shortly after an accident or while the victim is in medical distress as the kind of circumstance the rule targets.
Paying a vendor a share of the fee
RCW 2.48.180(2)(e) makes a nonlawyer sharing legal fees unlawful practice, and RCW 48.30A.015 criminalizes paid referrals of insurance claimants.
"Board certified" with no certifier
Comment [8] to RPC 7.1 requires the certifying organization's name in any communication about the certification.
A lead vendor that sounds like a referral service
Comment [14] to RPC 7.3 bars paying a generator that implies it recommends the lawyer or analyzed the person's problem.
Real results
What this looked like for real firms.
Published injury, DUI and real estate results, from firms whose case studies don't say where they practice.
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 Washington lawyers have to file their ads?
No. No Washington rule requires filing, review or a fee. The WSBA's Committee on Professional Ethics issues advisory opinions, and its Ethics Line answers members' questions about their own planned conduct.
Can a Washington lawyer call or visit someone who needs a lawyer?
Yes, unless one of RPC 7.3(a)'s four exceptions applies: the contact is false or misleading, the person can't exercise reasonable judgment, they've said no, or it involves coercion, duress or harassment. Comment [10] treats contact right after an accident, or with someone in medical distress, as the kind of setting the rule is aimed at.
Can I pay for leads in Washington?
Yes, if the generator doesn't recommend you, payment fits RPC 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its messages aren't misleading (RPC 7.3, comment [14]). For injury and property claims, also check RCW 48.30A.015, which makes paid referrals of insurance claimants a crime unless a defense in RCW 48.30A.020 applies.
Can a Washington lawyer call themselves a specialist?
Generally yes, if it's true and not misleading (comment [8] to RPC 7.1). Saying "certified" requires a certifier approved by a state authority or accredited by the ABA, named in the ad.
What changed in Washington's rules recently?
Order No. 25700-A-1628, dated April 2, 2025 and effective on publication (the rule's history line reads April 29, 2025), amended RPC 7.3(b)(2) and Comment 15, which now let a lawyer share a fee with a qualifying not-for-profit lawyer referral service. The larger change came in January 2021, when RPC 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 were reserved.
How does Washington compare with Oregon and other states?
Our Oregon guide covers the closest match, a similar any-means solicitation rule with a statute on injury referrals. The state-by-state list shows every state's filing rule, and our Hawaii guide covers a state with a 30-day letter rule.
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 couldn't search the WSBA's advisory opinions database, so this guide cites no WSBA opinion on advertising and relies on the rules and their comments. Platforms and rules change, so check the current version before you act on any of it. This is marketing guidance, not legal advice.
- Washington Courts, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) list
- Washington Courts, RPC 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, with comments
- Washington Courts, RPC 7.2 [Reserved]
- Washington Courts, RPC 7.3 Solicitation of Clients, with comments (amended April 29, 2025)
- Washington Courts, RPC 7.4 Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization [Reserved]
- Washington Courts, RPC 7.5 Firm Names and Letterheads [Reserved]
- Washington Courts, rule orders page
- Supreme Court of Washington, Order No. 25700-A-1628 (RPC 1.5, 5.4 and 7.3)
- Washington State Bar Association, Ethics (recent amendments and advisory opinions)
- Washington State Bar Association, About Advisory Opinions
- Washington State Legislature, RCW 48.30A.010 (insurance fraud definitions)
- Washington State Legislature, RCW 48.30A.015 (trafficking in insurance claims)
- Washington State Legislature, RCW 48.30A.020 (defenses)
- Washington State Legislature, RCW 48.30A.030 (injunctions and civil penalties)
- Washington State Legislature, RCW 2.48.180 (unlawful practice of law, nonlawyer fee sharing)
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.