Present case results only with the context that keeps them from misleading: what kind of matter it was, what the firm did, what the figure represents, and a plain statement that results depend on the facts of each case. The ABA Model Rules prohibit misleading communications, including true statements that leave out necessary context. State versions of those rules differ, so every results page needs review by whoever handles the firm's ethics questions before it goes live.
Results are the most tempting content a firm owns. A large number is easy to put in a headline, and prospective clients do look for evidence that a firm has handled matters like theirs. The same number, stripped of its circumstances, can promise something the firm never meant to promise.
This is a content-planning question for firm owners and marketing leads, not legal advice. Bring the specific page, and the specific results on it, to your ethics counsel.
What the Model Rules say
ABA Model Rule 7.1 says "A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." It defines a misleading communication as one that "contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law," or one that "omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading." A true settlement figure can fall under the second clause. Read the two clauses together and the working standard for a results page is clear: every figure needs enough context that a reasonable reader does not draw a conclusion the facts do not support.
The ABA's comment on Rule 7.1 addresses results directly: "A communication that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case." The same comment says "The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public." That is the ABA's model comment, so check your state's version too.
That state check is not a formality. The ABA's comparison charts exist to "show how each jurisdiction has modified each of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct," and any disclaimer wording should be checked against your own state's version.
A settlement figure is not a case summary
A prospective client reading "$1.2 million recovered" has no idea what it means for them. A number is not an explanation. Was it a verdict or a settlement? Before or after fees and costs? Was the firm lead counsel or one of several? Did the case involve facts a typical reader does not share, such as a commercial defendant or a permanent injury?
Those questions decide whether the result informs or misleads. The firm does not need to publish every detail, and confidentiality may limit what it can say, but the description has to carry enough context that a reasonable reader does not assume the same figure is available to them.
The same discipline applies to aggregate claims. "Over $50 million recovered" needs a period, a definition of what was counted, and a record behind it. If nobody at the firm can produce that record, the claim should not be on the page.
The words around a number matter as much as the number. Terms like "record," "largest," and "best" are comparisons, and comparisons need support the firm can produce. A headline that puts the figure first and the context in small print below can leave a reader with the headline alone, which is also how a quoted snippet or an AI summary may present it.
Build every entry from a record
Each published result should trace back to the matter file and an attorney's approval. The person writing the entry should not have to reconstruct a case from memory or from an old press release; the facts come from the firm, and the writer's job is to present them accurately.
| Field | What to record | Who confirms |
|---|---|---|
| Matter type | The practice area and the general situation, described without identifying the client | Responsible attorney |
| Firm's role | Lead counsel, co-counsel, or another role | Responsible attorney |
| Figure | Verdict or settlement, and whether it is gross or net of fees and costs | Responsible attorney with accounting |
| Date | When the matter resolved | Records |
| Permission | Whether the client agreed to publication, and on which channels | Managing attorney |
| Qualifying language | The statement the firm's ethics counsel approved for its state | Ethics counsel |
Keep that record in one place, not in a marketing folder alone. When a result is reused in an ad, a social post, or a pitch deck, the same fields travel with it and the qualifying language stays attached. A result that lives in six places with six different descriptions is hard to defend and harder to correct.
A fictional before and after
Consider a fictional workers' compensation firm in Pennsylvania. This is an invented entry, not a real result or a description of any firm's practice.
Before: "$450,000 for an injured worker! Call now and get what you deserve."
After: "Warehouse back injury, 2025. The client's claim was initially denied. Our firm represented the client at hearing as lead counsel, and the matter settled for $450,000 before attorney fees and costs. Every case depends on its own facts, and a past result does not predict the outcome of another matter."
The second version tells the reader what kind of case it was, what the firm did, and what the figure represents. Whether that qualifying sentence is the right one for Pennsylvania, or for any state, is exactly the question to bring to counsel.
Notice what the revised entry leaves out. It does not name the client, the employer, or the insurer, and it does not suggest that other warehouse injuries will settle for similar amounts. It also drops "get what you deserve," a phrase that implies an outcome without describing anything the firm did.
Settle permission and placement before publishing
Publishing a result discloses something about a client's matter, even without a name. Before any entry goes live, someone should ask, "Do we have this client's permission to publish this, and does it cover the website, ads, and social posts?" Your state's version of the professional conduct rules governs confidentiality and consent, so the answer belongs to the managing attorney and ethics counsel, not to the marketing calendar. Old permissions deserve a second look too, since a client who agreed to a website mention years ago may not have agreed to a paid ad.
Placement matters too. A result sits best beside the explanation of how the firm handles that kind of matter, not as a floating banner. Keep the same qualifying language wherever the result appears, and give one person the job of removing results that are too old to represent the firm's current practice. If the firm uses a consistent rule for choosing which results to show, a short note explaining it helps a reader understand that the list is selective.
Related questions in this set cover how advertising rules apply to blog posts and AI content and whether a firm can use client reviews and testimonials. The article on what a settlement number explains about your firm takes the injury-firm view, and the law firm content guide lists the full set.
In Hudson South's process, Authority Asset gathers the firm's approved knowledge and evidence, including the record behind each result; Hudson Twenty-One records how the firm communicates across 21 dimensions; Market Intelligence researches the questions clients ask; and AEO Creation turns those inputs into answer-first content.
Show the work behind your results
On a free 30-minute call, Hudson South walks through how your results and proof compare with the firms prospective clients also consider.
Get your free competitor analysisSources
- Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services. American Bar Association. Read 2026-10-15.
- Comment on Rule 7.1. American Bar Association. Read 2026-10-16.
- Jurisdictional Rules Comparison Charts. American Bar Association. Read 2026-10-15.