# Reputation management for lawyers: what the rules allow

Reputation management for lawyers means working inside confidentiality and advertising rules: client reviews, directories, bar records and AI answers.

---


Reputation management for lawyers is ordinary reputation work carried out under two sets of professional-conduct rules: a duty of confidentiality that limits how you answer a client's review, and advertising rules that limit what you may say about yourself. In practice that means replying rarely and narrowly, building accurate owned pages and directory profiles, and treating regulator records as facts to be contextualized, not as listings to be removed.

The difference from other professions is that reputational risk and regulatory risk arrive together. A lawyer who answers a review in detail may breach a duty to a client or former client, and the reply itself can become the story.

This guide goes through the surfaces where people form a view of a lawyer: reviews, the firm's own testimonials, directory listings, regulator and bar-record pages, and search and AI answers.  It is information, not legal advice: your regulator or ethics counsel decides what applies to you, and rules differ by state and country. The scenario near the end is invented.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>Confidentiality usually decides whether you may answer a client's review in public. The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 496 advises serious consideration of not responding at all, and says a response may not reveal information relating to a client's representation.</li><li>Advertising and publicity rules apply to your own pages and to how you use reviews. In England and Wales the SRA Code requires publicity to be accurate and not misleading. In the United States, advertising rules are set state by state, and the text must be checked.</li><li>Directory profiles and owned biographies do the real work. Regulator records are the regulator's, not yours: you can add context beside them and correct factual errors, but you cannot ask for them to be hidden.</li></ul></div>

<figure class="keyfacts">
<div class="keyfacts-grid">
<div><b>January 13, 2021</b><span>the date ABA Formal Opinion 496, on responding to online criticism, was issued</span></div>
<div><b>Three years</b><span>how long the SRA says published regulatory decisions generally stay on its decisions website</span></div>
<div><b>2008</b><span>the year the SRA says publishing of its regulatory decisions began</span></div>
</div>
<p class="fig-src">Sources: ABA Formal Opinion 496 (PDF copy opened for this guide); SRA page on the search tool for regulatory decisions, opened for this guide.</p>
</figure>

## Why a lawyer's reputation sits under four rulebooks

A lawyer's public reputation is shaped by four sets of rules at once, and a move that is sensible under one can break another. The four are the duty of confidentiality, the rules on advertising and publicity, the regulator's own public record, and the policies of each review platform and directory.

Confidentiality is the most surprising of the four for non-lawyers. In the [SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors](https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/), paragraph 6.3 says you keep the affairs of current and former clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents. The ABA formulation, Model Rule 1.6, is described in Opinion 496 as covering information relating to a client's representation, even where that information is already public. A reviewer who has posted their own account of a case has not released you from the duty.

Advertising rules govern what your site, profiles and marketing may claim. The record is a disciplinary outcome or published sanction, which a regulator does not remove because it is unflattering. Platform policy sets what a review site will take down and what a directory lets you edit.

The order of operations follows: read the rule that binds you, fix the facts on pages you control, and reply publicly last. A reply that confirms someone was your client confirms the relationship the duty protects. General review-reply craft is not repeated here.

## What confidentiality allows when a client reviews you

When a current or former client posts a review, the safe default is no public reply that touches the matter. [ABA Formal Opinion 496](https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/CBA/Ethics22221/aba-formal-opinion-496.pdf), which we opened as a PDF copy, concludes that a negative online review, because of its informal nature, is not a "controversy between the lawyer and the client" within the self-defense exception in Rule 1.6(b)(5). It adds that even if it were, a public response is not reasonably necessary to establish a claim or defense. It also says that lawyers should give serious consideration to not responding to negative online reviews in all situations.

A fee dispute that has become a formal claim is a different situation, and your ethics counsel should decide it.

The table sorts common situations. The first three rows follow what Opinion 496 says; the last is platform practice. It does not reflect every state's version of the rule.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Who posted</th><th>What the opinion says you may do</th><th>What it says you may not</th><th>Main risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>A current or former client</strong></td><td>Contact that person privately without client detail; if you post, use a general line such as the one quoted below</td><td>Respond online with information relating to the representation</td><td>A breach of confidentiality that is worse than the review</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Someone who was never a client</strong></td><td>Say simply that the poster is not a client or former client; ask the host to remove the post</td><td>Add detail that could reveal client involvement in related events</td><td>A general rebuttal that hints at a real client matter</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>A review you cannot place</strong></td><td>Ask the host or search engine to remove it, without client information</td><td>Confirm or deny any representation, or add a general disclaimer</td><td>A general disclaimer can reveal involvement</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>A review that breaks platform rules</strong></td><td>Report it through the platform's own tool</td><td>Argue the facts in the report</td><td>The report discloses what the reply could not</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

The opinion's example of public wording is short: "Professional obligations do not allow me to respond as I would wish." It argues no facts. Whether any added invitation to talk is safe is for your jurisdiction's rule and your ethics counsel.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Warning</span>
<h4>A general denial can still disclose</h4>
<p>The opinion cautions that even a general disclaimer about events can reveal client involvement. Before you answer a review that describes a real matter, assume every added sentence is a disclosure unless your ethics counsel says otherwise.</p>
</aside>

## A short reply that stays inside the rule

The reply that survives scrutiny says almost nothing, politely, and moves the conversation offline. It does not rebut, explain, defend your fee or describe the outcome. It is written for the next prospective client, who wants a lawyer who takes criticism calmly and keeps confidences.

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>Replying to a client review without breaching confidentiality</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Read the review as a disclosure risk</b>Their own words do not release you, so do not repeat, confirm or correct any of it, and check your jurisdiction's rule or ask your bar ethics line.</li>
<li><b>Decide whether to reply at all</b>The ABA opinion advises serious consideration of not responding. A reply can draw more attention and further posts, and the review may be better left alone.</li>
<li><b>If you post, use a general line</b>Say professional obligations limit your reply, and check with your ethics counsel before adding any invitation to talk. Add no facts about the matter or its result.</li>
<li><b>Report only what breaks platform rules</b>If the review is fake, off topic or abusive under the platform's policy, report it without client detail, and keep a record of the report.</li>
</ol>
</figure>

Never respond from a personal or anonymous account to "set the record straight": it is easy to spot, and it still discloses.

## Asking for reviews and showing testimonials

Client reviews are lawful to ask for and to display in many places, but they count as publicity, so the accuracy duties apply to how you use them. In England and Wales, paragraph 8.8 of the SRA Code says you ensure that any publicity in relation to your practice is accurate and not misleading. The [SRA's transparency guidance](https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/transparency-in-price-and-service/) says an independent review service can showcase the quality of a firm's work and show that it responds proactively to negative feedback. It also ties misleading publicity to paragraph 8.8. Its page does not mention testimonials, so treat any quoted client comment as publicity that must be accurate.

In the United States, lawyer advertising is regulated state by state. The ABA's Model Rule 7.1 page and current state rules on testimonials could not be read for this guide, so no US rule text is quoted here. State rules differ on testimonials, on past results, on whether disclaimers are required and on how a testimonial must be labeled. Treat the state rule as a gating step, not a formality.

Some limits follow from the idea of a misleading statement in almost any system:

- **Display only real reviews, in full context.** Selecting only the best lines from a review, or editing wording, can turn an honest review into a misleading one.
- **Never write or buy reviews.** Fake reviews are a conduct problem as well as a platform one. A reviewer who is paid, a colleague writing as a client and an AI-written testimonial all fail the accuracy test.
- **Do not pressure a client to delete a truthful review.** Reporting one that breaks platform rules is fine.
- **Keep consent records.** If you quote a client or describe their matter on your site, get written consent.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Limit</span>
<h4>Check your own state or country first</h4>
<p>This guide could read the SRA Code and ABA Opinion 496 but not the text of Model Rule 7.1 or any state advertising or testimonial rule. Where your jurisdiction's text is not in your hands, use your regulator or bar ethics line, not this article.</p>
</aside>

## Directory listings: which ones to claim and what each controls

Directories rank for lawyers' names and practice-area searches, and are usually easier to correct than a review. For each listing ask who owns the record and what you can edit.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Listing type</th><th>Who controls it</th><th>What you can do</th><th>Watch for</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Your firm's own biography page</strong></td><td>You</td><td>Write it in your own words, keep it current, list admissions and practice areas</td><td>Claims that cannot be substantiated</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Bar or law society directory</strong></td><td>The body that runs it</td><td>Update contact details and fields it allows; ask for factual corrections</td><td>Data that you cannot edit and a body that does not remove entries on request</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Commercial legal directory</strong></td><td>The publisher</td><td>Claim the profile, correct facts, add a biography</td><td>Paid tiers described as peer recognition</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>General review site or map listing</strong></td><td>The platform; you manage the profile</td><td>Verify the listing, set hours and categories, report rule-breaking reviews</td><td>Duplicate or outdated listings left unclaimed</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

One correct fact repeated in many places beats many thin profiles. Inconsistent names, firm names, admission years or addresses are a common reason a search engine or AI assistant merges two lawyers. A name-and-address audit across your site, profiles and map listing is a low-cost fix.

Be careful with paid badges: describing a payment-based ranking as an independent award can be misleading. State what the badge is and how it was earned, or leave it out.

## Bar-record and regulator pages: what you can and cannot change

A regulator's record is a public fact about you, and the right approach is to correct inaccuracies, add context beside it and keep your own pages complete. It is not to ask for removal of something accurate. A request to hide an accurate decision will fail and may draw attention.

The [SRA's page about its search tool for regulatory decisions](https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/) is a useful example of how these records work. The page lets you filter decisions by outcome type, including fined, sanction, prosecution, control of practice and closure. It also says that not all regulatory decisions are published, that publishing began in early 2008, that decisions generally stay on the website for three years, and that the site cannot give a complete picture of the regulatory record. The page also points to the Solicitors Register, which covers SRA-regulated individuals and firms in England and Wales. We did not read a US state bar record page for this guide, so check your own.

What this means for the person behind the record:

- **Know what it says.** Search for your own name on the regulator's tool and on your bar's lookup page. Read it as a stranger would.
- **Check the facts.** If a date, outcome or description is wrong, write to the regulator with evidence. The pages we read give no route to delete an accurate record.
- **Check copies.** Directories and AI summaries copy regulator entries, sometimes wrongly or after the original has dropped off. Take errors up with the publisher.
- **Add context honestly.** A short, factual statement on your own biography page, written with your counsel, can sit beside a record without disputing it. It should never minimize or contradict what the regulator published.

## What search engines and AI assistants say about a lawyer

Search engines and AI assistants build an answer about a lawyer from the pages they can reach: the firm site, directory profiles, bar and regulator pages, court listings, news, review platforms and legal blogs. They often blend sources, so a record about one lawyer can be attached to another with a similar name.

The fix is boring and effective. Publish one clear biography per lawyer on the firm's site with the full name, jurisdiction of admission, practice areas and a consistent description. Match that wording in directory profiles. Where an AI answer is wrong, correct the underlying sources first, then use the assistant's own feedback route, which varies by provider and was not tested for this guide.

Test your own name monthly, in a private window, on a few phrasings: your name alone, your name with the city and your name with a practice area. Look at which sources appear, what an assistant says about your admissions and any disciplinary history, and whether it describes the right person. For a monitoring routine that covers both search and AI answers, see our page on [reputation monitoring](/reputation-monitoring).

## A worked scenario with a realistic timeline

This is an invented scenario with generic parties. A solo family-law practitioner discovers a one-star review from a former client that describes the outcome of a matter and calls the lawyer dishonest. The same week a legal directory lists an old office address, and an AI assistant gives an answer that merges the lawyer's name with another lawyer's.

Assumptions: the review is by a real former client, it does not break the platform's rules, the directory profile is unclaimed, and the lawyer has no disciplinary history. The plan below runs in the order that keeps the lawyer inside the rules, and times are typical ranges, not promises.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>When</th><th>Action</th><th>Rule it respects</th><th>Usual result</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Day 1</strong></td><td>Do not reply. Record the review, the date and the platform. Ask the bar ethics line how to respond</td><td>Confidentiality; no disclosure while advice is pending</td><td>No new post and no extra attention</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Days 2 to 7</strong></td><td>Contact the former client privately if appropriate. Claim the directory profile and fix the address</td><td>Direct contact allowed offline; accuracy duty for publicity</td><td>Some reviewers withdraw or edit a review after a calm call; many do not</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Weeks 2 to 4</strong></td><td>Publish or refresh the firm biography. Align the name, firm name and admissions on all profiles</td><td>Publicity must be accurate and not misleading</td><td>Owned pages begin to appear in name results</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Weeks 8 to 12</strong></td><td>Re-run the name test across search and AI assistants and correct the sources that still merge the two lawyers</td><td>Accuracy; no client information in corrections</td><td>The wrong merge usually fades as consistent sources accumulate</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

What fails is the shortcut. A detailed public reply would have been a disclosure, and calling a truthful review fake could itself be a false statement. The review stays, and the pages around it do the work.

## Build the routine and get a second pair of eyes

Treat this as a quarterly routine: read the rules that bind you, review your name results, keep profiles current, and name one person in the firm who decides on public replies.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>If a review, a record or an AI answer about you is already causing harm, start with what the rules let you do, not with what you wish to say. Reputation Partners works with lawyers, firms and their compliance teams on audits of what search engines and AI assistants show, and does not draft replies that touch client information. Start with a private <a href="/audit">audit</a>.</p></div>

## Questions people ask

### Can a lawyer respond to a bad review?

Often only in a narrow form. The ABA opinion advises serious consideration of not responding at all, and says a response must not reveal information relating to a client's representation. A short line saying professional obligations do not allow the reply you would wish is the example it gives. Your own jurisdiction's rule governs, so check with your regulator or ethics counsel first.

### Can a lawyer ask clients for reviews?

In many places yes, but the review then becomes part of your publicity and the accuracy duty applies. The SRA says a review service can showcase quality and show proactive handling of negative feedback, and ties misleading publicity to its Code. Never offer a reward without checking your state or country rule, never write reviews yourself and never edit one.

### Can I have a disciplinary record removed from search results?

Not if it is accurate and public. The SRA page we read says decisions generally stay on its site for three years and that it cannot give a complete picture of the record. You can correct factual errors and strengthen your own pages with accurate context. A request to hide an accurate record will usually fail.

### Should a firm use a reputation management company?

Use one only if it works inside your rules. A good provider audits, corrects and builds accurate owned pages, but it should not post replies that touch client information, write testimonials or promise removal of an accurate record. Ask for the process in writing, and have your compliance lead or ethics counsel read it before anyone speaks for you in public.

### What do AI assistants say about lawyers?

They summarize the pages they can reach, so the answer reflects your site, directories, regulator pages and news. Errors usually come from outdated profiles or two similarly named lawyers. Fix the sources first, keep the biography consistent, and test your name in a private window on a regular schedule.