Model Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services

When it applies

This rule applies whenever a lawyer communicates about their practice to the public or a prospective client, including advertisements, websites, letterhead, and social media posts. On the MPRE, it frequently appears in fact patterns involving claims about success rates, guaranteed outcomes, or comparisons to other attorneys.

What the rule requires

• A communication must not contain a material misrepresentation of fact or law.
• A communication must not omit a fact necessary to keep the statement from being materially misleading.
• Statements presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation about results (e.g., guarantees of outcome) are misleading and violate the rule.
• An unsubstantiated comparison to other lawyers' services, or an unsubstantiated claim about the lawyer's services or fees, may be misleading if it is presented with such specificity that a reasonable person would conclude it can be substantiated.
• The standard is objective: whether the statement would mislead a reasonable person, not whether the lawyer intended to deceive.

Exceptions

• Truthful statements about past results are generally permitted if they are not presented in a way that creates an unjustified expectation of similar results in a client's own matter.
• Comparisons to other lawyers are allowed if they can be factually substantiated.

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 7.1

• Students often assume only literal falsehoods violate the rule; misleading truths and omissions also count.
• MPRE questions test whether a claim like 'we win 95% of cases' is misleading because it lacks context about case types or sample size.
• Students confuse this rule with 7.2 and 7.3, which govern the mechanics of advertising and solicitation rather than content truthfulness.
• The rule applies to all communications, not just paid advertisements, including casual statements and social media.