Legal Advertising Rules in Australia: What Law Firms Can and Can't Say

Australian law firms are allowed to advertise, but ASCR Rule 36 limits what they can claim across every marketing channel they use. The rule covers the website, SEO titles, Google Ads, Google reviews, social posts, and directory listings, and it draws a clear line between a factual claim a firm can stand behind and one that misleads.

This guide outlines what Rule 36 states, provides an asset-by-asset checklist of what law firms can and can't say, explains the specialist-claim and review rules, and demonstrates why personal injury advertising depends on the state in which a firm practices.

Australian law firms are allowed to advertise, and almost everything they publish about their services counts as advertising under the rules. The regulator treats advertising broadly: a website page, an SEO title and meta description, a Google Ads headline, a social post, an email campaign, and a directory listing are all marketing in the eyes of ASCR Rule 36. A firm that assumes only paid ads count tends to leave its highest-traffic claims, the ones on its own website, unchecked.

The rule applies the same standard to each of these assets, so compliance is a marketing-operations task rather than a single line in the footer. A claim that would breach Rule 36 in a television advertisement breaches it the same way in a meta title or a review reply.

Because the rule reaches every channel a firm uses, the practical question is not if your marketing is regulated but which specific claim on which specific asset crosses the line. Treating advertising as the full set of outward-facing assets, and checking each one against the rule, is how a firm markets actively across Australia while staying inside Rule 36.

ASCR Rule 36 sets four limits on every Australian law firm's advertising: it must not be false, misleading or deceptive, offensive, or prohibited by law. These four prohibitions, set out in Rule 36.1.1 to 36.1.4 of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules, bind a solicitor and the principal of a law practice alike. They are the boundaries every marketing claim has to sit inside, on every channel.

A law firm's advertising must be factually accurate and never likely to mislead.

A law firm's advertising breaches Rule 36 the moment a claim is false or likely to mislead, and the same conduct can breach the Australian Consumer Law under sections 18 and 29. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about matters such as qualifications, price, and performance.

A claim does not need to be outright false to breach the rule, since a headline that creates a misleading overall impression can breach it even when the fine print is accurate. This matters most in the assets firms that optimise the hardest, because a meta title or an ad headline that overstates success or implies a guaranteed result carries the same risk as a false statement. The reliable test is the impression a reasonable client takes from the claim, not the literal words alone.

Responsibility for a breach sits with both the solicitor and the practice principal.

Responsibility for an advertising breach sits with both the solicitor and the principal of the law practice, and a breach can amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The Law Society Journal notes that a breach of ASCR 3 6 may give rise to a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner, and that the principal of the practice is accountable as well as the individual solicitor.

This is why marketing sign-off is a principal-level responsibility that cannot be handed entirely to an agency: the firm carries the professional consequence, so the firm holds the final approval. A marketing partner can build compliant assets and flag risks, but the named solicitor remains the person answerable to the regulator.

Every marketing asset a law firm owns, from its homepage to its Google Ads, has its own line between a compliant claim and a breach. The rule does not change from asset to asset, but the way it applies does, because each channel invites a different kind of claim. The table below maps the Rule 36 limits to the assets a firm uses most, drawn from the same compliant-marketing approach we apply when we build and optimise law firm websites and profiles.

The pattern across the table is consistent: factual, substantiated claims are safe, and claims that imply a guaranteed outcome, an unearned status, or a misleading impression are not. A firm that runs each asset through one test can prove this claim and determine if the overall impression is accurate, resolving most compliance questions before they reach a regulator.

Superlatives carry the highest risk in your most valuable SEO assets.

Superlatives such as "best", "leading", or "number one lawyer" demand objective, current proof, which makes them the riskiest words to place in a meta title or an ad headline. A superlative is a representation under the Australian Consumer Law, so a firm using one needs evidence that is specific, current, and capable of substantiation, not a general sense of doing good work. The difficulty is that meta titles and ad headlines are the exact assets where firms reach for superlatives to win the click, which puts the highest-risk language in the highest-visibility position. A factual alternative ranks and converts without the exposure: a stated practice area, a real client outcome described accurately, or a concrete differentiator that the firm can prove. Specific beats superlative on both compliance and credibility.

A law firm can only call itself or its solicitors a "specialist" when that status is formally accredited by the relevant law society. The word carries a specific meaning under Rule 36.2, and using it without accreditation is one of the clearest breaches a firm can make. A factual description of experience is allowed, but a claim of specialist status is held to a higher standard.

The words "accredited specialist" are reserved for solicitors who hold current accreditation.

The words "accredited specialist" and their post-nominals are reserved under Rule 36.2 for solicitors who hold current accreditation from the relevant professional association. Bodies such as the Law Society of NSW, the Queensland Law Society, and the Law Institute of Victoria run accreditation schemes, and a solicitor earns the title by passing the assessment and maintaining it with annual professional development.

Rule 36.2 also prohibits conveying a false or misleading impression of specialist expertise, so describing yourself as a "specialist" in a field, even without the formal post-nominal, can breach the rule if a reader would take it as accreditation. A firm can still state a genuine focus, for example, a stated period of practice in family law, as long as the claim is factual and substantiated.

Specialist accreditation belongs to the individual solicitor, not the whole firm.

Specialist accreditation attaches to the individual solicitor who earned it, so a firm-wide "specialist" claim on a homepage or meta title can breach the rule even when one solicitor is accredited. A meta title that reads "Accredited Specialist Family Lawyers" across a firm with one accredited solicitor misrepresents the rest of the team, which is the kind of impression Rule 36.2 is written to prevent.

The compliant placement keeps the accreditation next to the individual's name, on their profile page and in their own listings, rather than as a blanket claim about the practice. This is a structural decision in how a firm's website and Google Business Profile are built, since the accreditation belongs to a person and the site has to reflect that.

Google reviews, testimonials, and fee claims are the marketing assets where law firms most often cross the line. Each is a powerful marketing signal, and each carries a specific compliance condition that firms routinely miss.

Google reviews must be earned without incentives, gating, or outcome-implying replies.

A law firm can ask clients for Google reviews, but the request must avoid incentives, must not screen out unhappy clients, and must not imply a guaranteed result in the reply. Google's own policy prohibits incentivised reviews, and review-gating, the practice of routing happy clients to a review form while diverting unhappy ones elsewhere, breaches both the platform and the standard Rule 36 sets.

A compliant review request asks a client for honest feedback at the close of a matter, offers no reward, and keeps any reply free of outcome claims, which is the same approach we use when we build review generation into a law firm's local SEO. A reply that thanks a client and names the practice area is fine; one that says the firm "always wins" is not.

Testimonials and case studies are permitted only with consent and context.

Testimonials and case studies stay compliant when they are genuine, consented to in writing, current, and presented without implying the same outcome for the next client. A case study must protect client confidentiality, so a firm de-identifies the matter unless it holds written consent to name the client. A short, accurate qualifier that outcomes depend on the facts of each matter keeps a real result from reading as a promise of the same result for everyone.

A "no win, no fee" claim must state its conditions clearly.

A "no win, no fee" claim must spell out what counts as a win and which costs remain payable, or it risks misleading clients under the rule and the Australian Consumer Law. A headline implying zero cost in every scenario, when disbursements may still be owed, creates the misleading impression both regimes prohibit. Stating the conditions plainly keeps the offer usable and compliant.

Personal injury advertising is the one area where a law firm's advertising rules change depending on the state in which it practises. The general Rule 36 standard still applies everywhere, but several states add specific restrictions on how personal injury and workers' compensation services can be advertised. A national template is unsafe here, since the same advertisement can be compliant in one state and prohibited in another.

New South Wales removed its blanket ban on advertising personal injury legal services.

New South Wales no longer imposes a blanket prohibition on advertising personal injury legal services, because the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 did not carry forward the ban from the repealed 2005 Regulation. The Law Society of NSW confirms that the prohibition which existed under the former Legal Profession Regulation 2005 was not reproduced, and that the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 likewise dropped the earlier restriction on advertising work injury services.

This does not make personal injury advertising unrestricted in NSW, since the general Rule 36 and Australian Consumer Law standards on misleading claims and outcome guarantees still apply in full. A NSW firm can advertise personal injury services, but the claims still have to be accurate, non-misleading, and free of guaranteed outcomes.

Other states still restrict how personal injury services can be advertised.

Other states continue to restrict personal injury advertising, so a firm operating across borders cannot rely on a single national rule. Queensland, for example, has historically restricted personal injury advertising more tightly, with limits aimed at the touting associated with claims harvesting. A firm that practises in more than one state, or runs national campaigns, has to check the personal injury rules in each state it targets before publishing, because the medium, the wording, and the targeting can each be restricted differently. Confirming the current position with the relevant state regulator is the only reliable step, since these rules change.

Most Rule 36 breaches in law firm marketing come from a short list of repeated mistakes rather than deliberate misconduct.

• The first is the unsubstantiated superlative, a "best" or "leading lawyer" claim in a meta title or ad with no objective proof on file.
• The second is the firm-level specialist claim, where a practice advertises "specialists" although only one solicitor holds accreditation.
• The third is the incentivised or gated Google review, which breaches both Google's policy and the rule against misleading impressions.
• The fourth is the unconsented testimonial or case study that identifies a client or matter without written permission.
• The fifth is the personal injury advertisement that relies on a national template instead of the rules of the state in which it runs.

Every one of these is avoidable with a single habit: check each marketing asset against the rule before it goes live, and keep evidence for every claim that needs it. A firm that builds that check into its publishing process removes most of its exposure without slowing its marketing down.

Compliance and growth pull in the same direction once a law firm treats Rule 36 as the foundation of its marketing rather than a limit on it. The claims that breach the rule, guarantee outcomes, unearned specialist status, and inflated superlatives are also the claims that erode trust with the clients a firm wants. The claims that comply with factual experience, real and consented client feedback, and clear fee terms are the ones that convert.

A compliant marketing system is not a slower one; it earns rankings, reviews, and enquiries on claims a firm can stand behind. This is how we approach law firm marketing across the board, from a compliant Google Business Profile to local SEO that turns map pack visibility into tracked enquiries, all built on claims that hold up. Compliance, handled at the asset level, becomes the structure that lets a firm market harder, not softer.

Advertise With Confidence: Compliant Claims, Compliant Growth

A law firm advertises with confidence, knowing that every claim it makes, on every channel, sits inside ASCR Rule 36. Three points carry most of the compliance load: the rule covers every marketing asset and not only paid ads; the line between a compliant claim and a breach is best checked asset by asset; and personal injury advertising depends on the state a firm practises in.

Get those right, and a firm can market actively without putting its practising certificate at risk. Get a free Rule 36 marketing review from Digital OORT: we will check your website claims, meta titles, Google reviews, and ad copy against the advertising rules and flag anything to take to your solicitor. For the wider plan to grow a practice within the rules, see our digital marketing for law firms page.

FAQs