Can Lawyers Use AI to Write Their Marketing Content? What Model Rules 7.1 and 5.3, ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Google’s Spam Policies Actually Require

Can lawyers use AI to write their marketing content? Yes, but the lawyer answers for every word. The ABA Model Rules don’t ban it: Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading statements however drafted, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) applies existing duties to generative AI. Google’s spam policies target mass-produced, low-value pages. JustLegal Marketing’s content is written by lawyers.

The pitch is familiar by now: a tool, or an agency running one, that promises fifty practice-area pages by Friday. The question underneath it is a fair one — can lawyers use AI to write their marketing content without creating an ethics problem or a Google problem? — and two quick answers get repeated. One says Google penalizes AI content. The other says it's fine because everyone does it. The first is wrong as stated, and the second skips the part where the lawyer owns the result.

The accurate answer has three parts. The professional-conduct rules regulate what your marketing says, not the software that drafted it. Your duties travel with the work when someone outside the firm drafts it. And Google says it focuses on the quality of content, "rather than how content is produced." Below are the rules that matter, quoted from the source, and what to require of anyone — person or software — who writes under your firm's name.

A note on scope: this article discusses the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which are a model. As ABA Formal Opinion 480 puts it, "the laws, court rules, regulations, rules of professional conduct and opinions promulgated in individual jurisdictions are controlling." Check your state's version of every rule below. This is general information, not legal advice.

No Ban, Full Responsibility: What Model Rule 7.1, the Specialist Rule in 7.2(c) and ABA Formal Opinion 512 Say About AI-Drafted Marketing

None of the rules discussed here prohibits using software to draft a web page. They regulate what the page says. Model Rule 7.1 is the core of it:

"A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading."

The comments remove any doubt about method. Comment [1]: "This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertising. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about them must be truthful." Comment [2] adds that even a truthful statement is misleading if "a substantial likelihood exists that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation." Comment [3] goes straight at the claims marketing copy reaches for: results presented so as to create "an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients," and "an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s or law firm’s services or fees with those of other lawyers or law firms."

That is where generative tools create risk. Opinion 512 describes the failure mode in its own words: some tools are "prone to 'hallucinations,' providing ostensibly plausible responses that have no basis in fact or reality," and "lawyers’ uncritical reliance on content created by a GAI tool can result in inaccurate legal advice to clients or misleading representations to courts and third parties." In a brief, that looks like a citation to a case that doesn't exist. In marketing copy, it looks like a sentence nobody at the firm can substantiate. Generic examples of what an unreviewed draft can hand you:

• an award, rating or membership the firm does not hold
• a statistic nobody can source ("our clients recover three times more")
• "we win every case" or "guaranteed results"
• a comparison with other firms that the firm cannot back up
• a years-in-practice figure or credential that is simply wrong
• an outdated statute, deadline or procedure stated as current

Each is a Rule 7.1 question no matter who, or what, typed it.

The specialist trap: Rule 7.2(c)

Model Rule 7.2(c) governs one of the most consequential words a draft bio can use:

"A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless: (1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate authority of the state or the District of Columbia or a U.S. Territory or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and (2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication."

The line is certification, not the word itself. Comment [9] says a lawyer is "generally permitted" to state that the lawyer "concentrates in" or is a "specialist," practices a "specialty," or "specializes in" a field based on experience, training or education, subject to Rule 7.1's "false and misleading" standard. A draft that adds "board-certified" or "certified specialist" to a bio because it sounds authoritative is the implication Rule 7.2(c) prohibits unless the certification exists and the certifying organization is named. State versions of Rule 7.2 differ, so check yours before an AI draft's adjectives go live.

Rule 7.2(d) adds one more requirement that fits this topic neatly: "Any communication made under this Rule must include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content."

What Opinion 512 says — and what it doesn't

ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 29, 2024), is the ABA's main statement on the subject. Its summary lists the duties in play: "to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees."

It is about client work, not advertising. The opinion does not analyze marketing copy. A footnote lists Rule 7.1 among the rules where "additional issues may surface" and cites the Florida Bar's Ethics Opinion 24-1, which, in the ABA's description, discusses generative-AI chatbots under Florida Rule 4-7.13, a rule that "prohibits misleading content and unduly manipulative or intrusive advertisements." The Florida Bar's own summary of Opinion 24-1 says lawyers "may use generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the practice of law but must protect the confidentiality of client information, provide accurate and competent services, avoid improper billing practices, and comply with applicable restrictions on lawyer advertising."

Two of Opinion 512's points make sensible firm policy for marketing too. First, "Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies regarding the law firm’s permissible use of GAI." A policy that covers briefs but not the website is half a policy. Second, the opinion's insistence on "an appropriate degree of independent verification or review" of a tool's output is the right standard for anything that goes out under the firm's name.

And Model Rule 8.4(a) closes the obvious loophole: it is professional misconduct to "violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another."

The Agency Problem: Rule 5.3 Puts the Vendor Writing Your Pages Under Your Supervision — What to Require in Writing

Hiring an agency does not move the Rule 7.1 obligation off the firm. The page still describes your services, it still runs under your name, and Rule 7.1 is a duty of the lawyer. Model Rule 5.3 adds a supervisory layer for the people you hire. It applies "[w]ith respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer," and:

• 5.3(a): a partner, or a lawyer with comparable managerial authority, "shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer";
• 5.3(b): a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer "shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer";
• 5.3(c): a lawyer is responsible for the nonlawyer's conduct that would violate the Rules if the lawyer "orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved," or, as a partner or supervisor, "knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action."

The comment on "Nonlawyers Outside the Firm" says that when using outside services, "a lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the services are provided in a manner that is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations," and that the lawyer "should communicate directions appropriate under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance that the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." The comment's examples are investigators, document vendors and data storage, but the rule's text reaches any nonlawyer "retained by" a lawyer.

Opinion 512 makes the vendor point for AI tools used in client work, and its diligence list, drawn from earlier outsourcing opinions, is a useful template for any vendor that handles firm information: "reference checks and vendor credentials; understanding vendor’s security policies and protocols; familiarity with vendor’s hiring practices; using confidentiality agreements."

What to put in the agency agreement

None of the following is a rule. It is what we would want in writing before any vendor writes a page under a firm's name:

1. Attorney approval before publication. Name the lawyer who approves each page, and keep the record.
2. Disclosure of drafting tools. Whether AI tools are used, which ones, and how — so the firm can read the tools' terms, as Opinion 512 advises lawyers to do for any generative tool they use: "read and understand the Terms of Use, privacy policy, and related contractual terms and policies."
3. No client information in a prompt without the firm's written approval, and the client's informed consent where the confidentiality rules require it (next section).
4. A source for every number, statute and deadline, delivered with the draft.
5. No results, awards, rankings, credentials or comparisons that the firm has not substantiated in writing.
6. No reviews or testimonials drafted by the vendor. Testimonials come from real clients, in their own words, with permission. (The FTC rule below explains where the legal line sits; this is a stricter one.)
7. Corrections on request, with a record of who drafted each page and who approved it.

JustLegal Marketing was founded by a practicing attorney, and we offer content marketing written by lawyers. Whoever writes your pages, the list above is the standard to hold them to.

Confidentiality, Results and Reviews: Client Details in a Prompt, Case Results and Testimonials (Rule 1.6, ABA Formal Opinion 480), and AI-Generated Reviews Under the FTC’s 2024 Rule

Client details in a prompt

Model Rule 1.6(a) is broad: "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)."

Opinion 512 applies it to generative tools. Before lawyers input information relating to a representation into one, they "must evaluate the risks that the information will be disclosed to or accessed by others outside the firm." For self-learning tools, "a client’s informed consent is required prior to inputting information relating to the representation into such a GAI tool," and "merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters purporting to authorize the lawyer to use GAI is not sufficient." The opinion also marks the other side of the line: using a tool for "idea generation in a manner that does not require inputting information relating to the representation" does not require the client's consent.

For marketing, the practical line follows. Brainstorming blog topics is one thing. Pasting a client's file into a chat window to "write the case study" is another.

Case studies, results pages and testimonials

ABA Formal Opinion 480 (March 6, 2018) addresses lawyer blogging and other public commentary, including "website postings," and its rule is blunt: lawyers who blog or engage in other public commentary "may not reveal information relating to a representation, including information contained in a public record, unless authorized by a provision of the Model Rules." Two details matter for anyone writing a case study:

• Public availability is no defense. "Rule 1.6 does not provide an exception for information that is 'generally known' or contained in a 'public record.'"
• A disguise is no cure. "A violation of Rule 1.6(a) is not avoided by describing public commentary as a 'hypothetical' if there is a reasonable likelihood that a third party may ascertain the identity or situation of the client from the facts set forth in the hypothetical."

Opinion 480 is a confidentiality opinion and leaves the advertising rules aside, so results add a separate Rule 7.1 question. Comment [3] says truthful results can mislead when presented so as to create an unjustified expectation, and that "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."

Testimonials carry one more federal rule. When an endorser has a connection to the business that "might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement" and that the audience would not expect, the FTC's Endorsement Guides require that the connection "be disclosed clearly and conspicuously" — and "material connections can include a business, family, or personal relationship," as well as monetary payment or free or discounted products (16 CFR § 255.5). State advertising rules may add requirements of their own for testimonials, so check yours.

AI-generated reviews: the FTC rule

The FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, 16 CFR Part 465, took effect October 21, 2024. Section 465.2(a) makes it a violation for a business "to write, create, or sell a consumer review, consumer testimonial, or celebrity testimonial" that materially misrepresents that the reviewer exists, or that the reviewer "used or otherwise had experience with" the business or its services. When it announced the rule, the FTC named the target plainly: reviews that misrepresent "that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews." The rule lets the agency "seek civil penalties against knowing violators," currently up to $53,088 per violation under 16 CFR § 1.98(d), for penalties assessed after January 17, 2025.

The practical rule for a law firm is stricter than the regulation, and easier to follow: nobody — staff, agency or software — writes a review for the firm. For what you can and cannot do about the reviews you already have, including the FTC's suppression provision and ABA Formal Opinion 496, see our guide to getting a bad Google review removed.

What Google Rewards and What It Penalizes: Helpful Content However It Is Produced, Scaled Content Abuse, and the Site Reputation Policy

Google's position on AI-drafted content has held steady since its February 8, 2023 guidance, which ran under the heading "Rewarding high-quality content, however it is produced." Its FAQ answers the question directly: "Appropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines. This means that it is not used to generate content primarily to manipulate search rankings, which is against our spam policies." And: "Using AI doesn't give content any special gains. It's just content."

Google's current guidance on generative AI content (last updated October 1, 2026) says generative AI "can be particularly useful when researching a topic, and to add structure to original content," and it sets the bar for publishing: "It is critical to manually factcheck and review all AI-generated content for accuracy and trustworthiness before publishing." That review, Google adds, "also applies to metadata like" title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and image alt text. For automatically generated content, it suggests "adding information on how your content was created in a way that makes sense for your audience."

Scaled content abuse

The line Google draws is scale without value. Its spam policies (page last updated August 28, 2026) define scaled content abuse as "when many pages are generated for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users," typically "large amounts of unoriginal content that provides little to no value to users, no matter how it's created." The first example on Google's list is "Using generative AI tools or other similar tools to generate many pages without adding value for users"; another is "Creating many pages where the content makes little or no sense to a reader but contains search keywords."

Google introduced the policy on March 5, 2024, saying it applies "no matter whether content is produced through automation, human efforts, or some combination of human and automated processes," and that "sites that violate our spam policies may rank lower in results or not appear in results at all." For a law firm, the pattern to avoid is dozens of city or practice-area pages that differ only by the place name, or posts produced to hit a keyword rather than answer a client's question.

The site reputation policy

This is the policy most law firms meet from the other side. It "applies where third-party content is published on a host site mainly because of that host's already-established ranking signals." Google counts "freelancers, white-label services, and content created by people not employed directly by the host site" as third parties — but also says "having third-party content alone isn't inconsistent with the site reputation policy." Agency-written pages about your own services, on your own site, are not the pattern the policy describes. A placement bought on someone else's high-authority site so that it ranks on that site's strength is much closer to Google's examples. Pages found out of line with the policy may be subject to a manual action in results shown to users outside the European Economic Area; since August 30, 2026, inside the EEA they instead "may be categorized as separate from the main domain but won't be subject to the impact of manual action."

Bylines

Google's 2023 FAQ also speaks to authorship: consider "accurate author bylines when readers would reasonably expect it," and "giving AI an author byline is probably not the best way to follow our recommendation to make clear to readers when AI is part of the content creation process." For why named attorney authorship matters to AI citations, see why attorney-authored content wins AI search; for how Google's AI features choose what to cite, see our breakdown of Google's AI search guide and GEO vs. SEO for law firms.

Know What Your Website Says Before Anyone Else Reads It Closely

Get Your Free Content Audit. We'll read your practice-area pages, attorney bios and blog with this article's checklist in hand: unsourced statistics, unsupported results and credential claims, client details that may deserve a second look, and thin or duplicated pages. Then we'll tell you what we would fix first. It's a marketing review, not legal advice, and your state's rules control. If you hire us afterward, there are no long-term contracts.

Call 843-619-0229 or contact JustLegal Marketing. More on how we approach law-firm content is in our content marketing archive.

Frequently Asked Questions: Can Lawyers Use AI to Write Their Marketing Content?

Can lawyers use AI to write their marketing content?
Yes. The ABA Model Rules regulate what the content says, not how it was drafted: Rule 7.1 forbids false or misleading communications, and its comment says "whatever means are used" to make a lawyer's services known, statements about them must be truthful. Google says appropriate use of AI is not against its guidelines. The lawyer stays responsible for every claim, and state rules control.

Do we have to disclose that AI helped write our website?
None of the Model Rules discussed here requires an AI label on marketing copy, and Opinion 512's disclosure discussion concerns clients in a representation, not website readers. Google suggests explaining how content was created where readers would reasonably expect it. Check your state's rules and any guidance that applies to you.

Does Google penalize AI-generated content?
Not as such. Google says "using AI doesn't give content any special gains. It's just content." What its spam policies target is scaled content abuse: many pages generated primarily to manipulate rankings, "no matter how it's created."

Can our marketing agency write reviews or testimonials for us?
Not fake ones. Under 16 CFR § 465.2, a business may not write, create or sell a review or testimonial that materially misrepresents that the reviewer exists, that the reviewer had experience with the business, or what that experience was, and the FTC named AI-generated fake reviews as a target. A real client's testimonial, used with permission, raises different questions: an unexpected material connection must be disclosed under 16 CFR § 255.5, and your state's advertising rules apply. Our own recommendation is stricter than the rule: the client's words come from the client.

Can we paste client details into an AI tool to write a case study?
Not without care. Opinion 512 says a client's informed consent is required before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning tool, and boilerplate engagement-letter language is not enough. Opinion 480 adds that public-record status does not make client information fair game, and a "hypothetical" does not cure a disclosure if the client can be identified.

Can AI-drafted bios call our lawyers “specialists”?
Under Model Rule 7.2, a lawyer is generally permitted to say they specialize in a field, subject to Rule 7.1, but may not state or imply certification as a specialist unless certified by an approved or accredited organization that is named in the communication. State versions differ.

This article is general information about professional-conduct rules, the FTC's review rule and Google's published policies, not legal advice. The ABA Model Rules are a model; your state's rules and ethics opinions control. Rule text, opinions and policies were checked in October 2026.