Testimonials and Case Results: How Law Firm Advertising Can Cross the Ethics Line

What every law firm owner should know about advertising compliance, client endorsements, settlement claims, and past case results.

A five-star client review. A video of a satisfied client talking about their experience. A website displaying a $1 million settlement. A social media post celebrating a successful verdict.

These are common ways law firms build credibility and demonstrate their experience.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with showcasing positive client experiences or successful case outcomes.

But there is a side of legal marketing that many law firm owners do not think about until a problem comes up: the ethical requirements surrounding testimonials and case-result advertising.

A client might genuinely appreciate your work. Your firm might have secured an impressive settlement. The numbers might be completely accurate.

Yet the way you present that testimonial or case result could still violate professional advertising rules.

This is especially important because advertising compliance is not limited to whether a statement is true. It also concerns what the advertisement communicates as a whole, whether it creates an unjustified expectation, what information it leaves out, and whether the required disclosures are properly presented.

South Carolina's Rules of Professional Conduct provide some particularly useful examples of what law firm owners should watch for.

Let's look at where these problems happen, what can go wrong, and how your firm can avoid unnecessary compliance risks.

1. Legal advertising compliance applies wherever your firm publishes content

Before looking at specific violations, there is one important point to understand.

Your firm's ethical advertising responsibilities do not stop at its website.

South Carolina Rule 7.1 governs communications concerning a lawyer's services. Rule 7.2 addresses advertising through written, recorded, and electronic communications, including public media.

Consequently, the same advertising concerns can arise across:

• Law firm websites: Testimonials, attorney profiles, case-result pages, practice-area pages, landing pages, and homepage banners.
• Google Business Profiles and online directories: Client reviews, endorsements, attorney ratings, and firm descriptions.
• Google Ads and paid social media: Settlement amounts, client endorsements, promotional statements, and short-form advertisements.
• Social media platforms: Client review screenshots, case-result graphics, settlement announcements, and promotional posts.
• Videos and YouTube advertisements: Client interviews, attorney endorsements, settlement announcements, and videos discussing successful outcomes.
• Television and radio advertisements: Spoken testimonials, settlement claims, and promotional statements.
• Email campaigns and printed materials: Newsletters, brochures, mailers, and other communications promoting past results or client experiences.

Changing the marketing channel does not remove the responsibility to comply with the applicable advertising rules.

And another important detail: under Rule 7.2(b), the lawyer is responsible for advertising content placed or disseminated on the lawyer's behalf. The lawyer must review it before publication to reasonably ensure compliance.

Having an employee, marketing company, designer, or video editor create the content does not eliminate that responsibility.

2. Testimonial violations: When a client's positive experience becomes an advertising problem

Client testimonials help prospective clients understand what working with a law firm may look like.

They may talk about how the attorney communicated, how the legal team handled their case, or how the firm supported them during a difficult time.

However, a genuine testimonial is not automatically a compliant advertisement.

South Carolina Rule 7.1(d) establishes specific requirements for testimonials and endorsements.

An advertisement containing a testimonial or endorsement must:

• Identify the statement as a testimonial or endorsement.
• Disclose whether payment was made for it.
• Identify when the person providing it is not an actual client.
• Clearly and conspicuously state that a result achieved for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients.

Here are some common situations that deserve attention.

Using a testimonial without identifying it

Suppose a law firm publishes this statement on its homepage:

"They handled everything professionally and made a difficult experience much easier."

The statement may be genuine. But if the firm uses it as a testimonial or endorsement, it must identify it as such.

A simple attribution such as "Client Testimonial" helps communicate the nature of the statement.

Publishing paid testimonials without disclosure

Some firms work with individuals who provide endorsements in exchange for compensation.

South Carolina Rule 7.1(d) requires disclosure when payment has been made for the testimonial or endorsement.

There is another important consideration here.

Rule 7.2(c) generally prohibits giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, subject to specified exceptions.

Simply disclosing that a person was paid does not make an otherwise prohibited payment permissible.

Using a non-client's endorsement without identifying them

Imagine a law firm features an individual in a promotional video discussing why the firm is a great choice.

The individual has never been represented by the firm.

If that person is providing an endorsement, the advertisement must identify that they are not an actual client.

Otherwise, prospective clients could reasonably assume that the individual has direct experience working with the firm.

Using testimonials that make promises about future results

Consider a client testimonial that says:

"They guaranteed I would get compensation, and they delivered!"

Even when a client genuinely believes this, the firm should not automatically use it in an advertisement.

Statements that suggest guaranteed outcomes or create unjustified expectations raise concerns under Rule 7.1(b).

A law firm should carefully review the language it publishes rather than assuming that a client can say anything without creating an issue for the firm.

3. Case-result advertising: One of the biggest areas law firms need to get right

This is where compliance requires particular attention.

Law firms understandably want to showcase successful settlements, verdicts, and judgments.

These results demonstrate the work the firm has handled and help prospective clients understand its experience.

However, advertising a successful result is not simply a matter of publishing an accurate dollar amount.

A case result can be truthful and still create a misleading impression about what another client can expect.

South Carolina Rule 7.1(b) prohibits communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve.

The commentary to the rule specifically addresses advertisements reporting lawyers' achievements, including damage awards and records of favorable verdicts.

It explains that even truthful results can be misleading when presented in a way that suggests other clients can expect similar outcomes without considering the specific facts and legal circumstances of each case.

Here are some situations where law firms can run into trouble.

Violation 1: Publishing settlement amounts without the required disclaimer

Imagine a law firm's website displays:

$1,500,000 RECOVERED FOR AN INJURED CLIENT

The amount is accurate. The settlement happened. The firm represented the client.

But where is the disclaimer explaining that the result achieved for one client does not necessarily mean other clients can obtain similar results?

South Carolina's Rule 7.1 commentary makes clear that advertisements featuring individual case results, including damage awards and favorable verdict records, require a clear and conspicuous qualification addressing this expectation.

A settlement amount does not become compliant simply because it is factually correct.

The required disclaimer also needs to be presented according to Rule 7.2(i).

Violation 2: Making individual case results look like typical outcomes

Consider a website featuring several impressive recovery amounts:

• $2 million for a car accident.
• $850,000 for a workplace injury.
• $500,000 for a personal injury claim.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sharing accurate past results.

The problem arises when the overall presentation leads prospective clients to believe that these amounts are representative of what the firm regularly obtains or what they are likely to receive.

This is particularly concerning when the website uses statements such as:

"Our results prove we can get you the compensation you deserve."

Or:

"We have handled many cases just like yours, and our results speak for themselves."

The language can suggest that a prospective client's outcome is more predictable than it actually is.

Every legal matter has its own facts, evidence, liability questions, damages, and legal considerations.

A successful result in one matter does not establish what will happen in another.

Violation 3: Publishing settlement amounts without sufficient case context

Another problem occurs when law firms publish recovery amounts without providing enough information about the circumstances behind those results.

For example:

$750,000 SETTLEMENT

What does this tell a prospective client?

Was it a personal injury settlement? A wrongful death claim? A workers' compensation matter? Was liability disputed? What circumstances contributed to the outcome?

The amount alone provides very little context.

This is not simply a content-quality issue. In a 2025 South Carolina disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court addressed a law firm's Results page that listed numerous recovery amounts without the required result disclaimer and without sufficient reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances underlying those recoveries.

The Court concluded that the presentation was likely to create unjustified expectations about the results the firm could achieve.

The lesson is straightforward: do not make the dollar amount do all the talking.

Provide accurate context and make sure the overall presentation does not suggest that another client should expect the same outcome.

Violation 4: Misrepresenting what a case result actually represents

Law firms should also be careful about how they describe an outcome.

A settlement, jury verdict, court judgment, and actual amount received by a client are not interchangeable.

For example, advertising a settlement as a jury verdict would misrepresent the result.

Likewise, a firm should not present a gross settlement amount in a way that implies it represents the client's take-home recovery.

Before publishing a case result, verify exactly what the figure represents.

Is it a settlement amount? A jury award? A judgment? A gross recovery before deductions?

Describe the result accurately. Where omitting relevant information would make the advertisement misleading, provide the necessary context.

Violation 5: Making unsupported claims about success rates

Some law firms use statements such as:

• "We win 98% of our cases."
• "We have the highest success rate in South Carolina."
• "We recover more money than other personal injury firms."
• "Our firm gets bigger settlements than the competition."

These statements can raise multiple advertising concerns.

Can the firm actually substantiate the numbers?

What does winning mean? Does the calculation include every matter the firm handled? What period does it cover? Is it comparing similar cases and similar circumstances?

South Carolina Rule 7.1(a) prohibits material misrepresentations and misleading omissions. Rule 7.1(c) prohibits comparisons with other lawyers' services unless those comparisons can be factually substantiated.

If a firm cannot support a claim with reliable information, it should not use that claim in its advertising.

Violation 6: Using promotional language and visuals that imply guaranteed results

Sometimes, the problem is not just the words.

A law firm may use dollar signs, stacks of money, large settlement figures, or bold promotional slogans to communicate a message that the firm can consistently secure substantial recoveries.

Consider:

"Car Accident + Our Law Firm = BIG SETTLEMENT!"

Even without an explicit promise, the message may create an expectation that hiring the firm leads to a significant financial outcome.

South Carolina Rule 7.1(b) addresses communications that create unjustified expectations. Rule 7.1(e) also prohibits nicknames, monikers, or trade names that imply an ability to obtain results in a matter.

In other words, compliance is not limited to reviewing the written copy. The overall message, including visuals, slogans, and presentation, deserves attention.

4. A real South Carolina disciplinary case law firm owners should know about

It is worth looking at a particularly relevant example.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued a public reprimand in In the Matter of Michael George Hostilo, Opinion No. 28272.

The matter involved several advertising violations across the firm's website, YouTube video, and billboard.

Some of the issues are directly relevant to firms publishing testimonials and case results.

The firm's Results page

The website displayed numerous recovery amounts but did not clearly and conspicuously include the required disclaimer explaining that past results do not necessarily indicate similar results for other clients.

The page also lacked sufficient information about the specific factual and legal circumstances behind the recoveries.

The firm's homepage statements

The website included claims suggesting that its record of results demonstrated that prospective clients' cases were in the best hands and that the firm had handled many cases just like theirs.

The statements were found to create unjustified expectations about the results the firm could achieve.

The YouTube advertisement

The firm published a video using a promotional formula connecting a car accident with the firm to produce a "big settlement," with images of money appearing in the background.

The respondent admitted that the advertisement was likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the firm could achieve.

The billboard advertisement

The billboard featured dollar signs prominently. It also lacked required advertising information and did not present its required disclosures and disclaimers in a sufficiently legible and conspicuous manner.

Another important issue was that the lawyer had not reviewed the advertisements before publication to reasonably ensure compliance.

The Supreme Court issued a public reprimand and assessed the consequences under its disciplinary framework.

This case is particularly valuable because it demonstrates that compliance problems can exist across multiple marketing channels at the same time.

The firm did not have an issue limited to one poorly worded testimonial. Its website case results, promotional messaging, video advertisement, billboard, and advertising review process all raised concerns.

You can read the official South Carolina Supreme Court decision.

5. Disclaimers: Having one is not enough if nobody can see it

One of the easiest mistakes to make is assuming that adding a disclaimer somewhere in the advertisement solves the problem.

It does not.

South Carolina Rule 7.2(i) requires disclosures and disclaimers to be sufficiently large to be clearly legible and prominently placed so they are conspicuous.

The presentation requirements also depend on the format.

On websites and landing pages: The required language must appear on the same page as the statement that requires the disclosure.

In videos and electronic broadcasts: The disclaimer must remain on screen long enough for viewers to read it.

In radio or other spoken advertisements: A spoken disclaimer must be plainly audible.

In graphics and social media advertisements: The disclaimer must be sufficiently legible and prominent, not hidden in tiny text or placed where viewers are unlikely to notice it.

For example, a firm may create a graphic featuring a $1 million settlement and add a disclaimer in very small text at the bottom.

Technically, the words are there.

But if viewers cannot easily read them, the firm may still have a compliance problem.

A practical question to ask before publishing is:

Can someone viewing this advertisement easily notice and read the disclaimer without having to search for it?

6. Client confidentiality: Another responsibility when publishing testimonials and case results

Even when a testimonial or case result is accurate, law firms need to consider client confidentiality.

South Carolina Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from revealing information relating to the representation without informed client consent, unless another applicable exception permits the disclosure.

An important detail in the rule's commentary is that this obligation applies even when information appears in court filings or has otherwise become generally known.

This means a publicly available case result is not automatically available for use in your firm's marketing.

Before publishing identifying information, case details, photographs, testimonials, or other information relating to a representation, make sure the appropriate informed consent has been obtained.

The consent should address the specific information being disclosed and the intended marketing use.

A client's willingness to leave a positive review does not automatically authorize the firm to disclose additional details about their case.

Keep confidentiality and advertising compliance as two separate parts of your review process.

7. What can happen if a law firm violates these rules?

Advertising violations should not be dismissed as minor marketing mistakes.

Under South Carolina Rule 8.4(a), violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, including through the actions of another person, constitutes professional misconduct.

The disciplinary framework under Rule 413 provides for several possible sanctions, depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the misconduct.

These include:

• Admonition or public reprimand.
• Suspension from practicing law.
• Disbarment.
• Fines and disciplinary proceeding costs.
• Restitution and limitations on future practice.

The 2025 Hostilo matter is a practical reminder that advertising violations can result in a public reprimand.

There may also be consequences beyond formal disciplinary action.

An investigation can consume time and attention that should be spent running the practice and serving clients.

Misleading advertising can damage the firm's credibility and undermine the trust it has worked hard to build.

If confidential client information is involved, the problem can become even more serious.

A compliance issue that could have been identified during a pre-publication review may turn into a much larger professional responsibility concern.

8. How can law firm owners prevent testimonial and case-result advertising violations?

You do not have to stop showcasing client experiences or past results.

What you need is a consistent process for reviewing both before they reach the public.

Here are practical steps your firm can implement.

1. Review testimonials before publishing them.

Check whether the statement is identified as a testimonial or endorsement, whether the speaker is an actual client, and whether any payment has been disclosed where required.

Also review the actual language for promises, misleading comparisons, or statements that could create unjustified expectations.

2. Verify every case-result claim.

Check the underlying matter and confirm the accuracy of the amount, outcome, terminology, and relevant context.

Do not confuse a settlement with a verdict or imply that a client received an amount that they did not actually receive.

3. Include the required past-results disclaimer.

When publishing case results or relevant testimonials and endorsements, make sure the required language clearly communicates that one client's result does not necessarily indicate similar results for another client.

4. Provide enough context around case results.

Avoid relying solely on large dollar amounts.

Explain the nature of the outcome accurately and provide appropriate factual context without disclosing confidential information.

5. Obtain informed client consent.

Before disclosing information relating to a representation for advertising purposes, make sure the appropriate informed consent is obtained.

6. Review the final creative, not just the written content.

A compliant website paragraph can become problematic when turned into a short video or promotional graphic.

Check the final design, font size, disclaimer placement, video display time, spoken disclosures, and landing page.

7. Make sure marketing vendors understand their responsibilities.

Your marketing team may create the content, but the responsible lawyer must review it before publication.

Do not assume that a content approval process focused only on grammar, branding, or design is sufficient.

8. Keep advertising records.

South Carolina Rule 7.2(b) requires lawyers to retain a copy or recording of each advertisement or communication for two years after its last dissemination, along with a record of when and where it was distributed.

Build this into your regular marketing workflow.

9. Review content every time it is repurposed.

A testimonial originally published on your website may be reused in a Facebook advertisement, a YouTube video, or a promotional email.

Do not assume that approval for one format automatically makes every future use compliant.

9. Make advertising compliance part of your firm's marketing process

Let's be realistic.

Running a law firm involves far more than reviewing marketing content.

You are managing cases, clients, employees, finances, and the day-to-day responsibilities of the practice.

It is not always practical for a firm owner to manually examine every testimonial, case-result graphic, advertisement, website update, and video for potential compliance concerns.

But ignoring the problem is not a solution either.

That is why VIP Marketing built an exclusive compliance-checking tool for law firm owners.

The purpose is to give law firms an additional checkpoint when reviewing marketing materials, helping them identify potential compliance concerns before content is published.

Whether your firm is preparing a client testimonial, publishing a settlement announcement, updating its Results page, or creating a new video advertisement, checking the content before publication can become a practical part of your marketing process.

The tool is intended to support the review process, not replace the responsible lawyer's professional judgment, legal review, or obligations under the applicable state rules.

Your marketing should help prospective clients understand your firm's experience, not create expectations that your lawyers cannot promise to deliver.

Final thoughts

Client testimonials and case results can both be valuable parts of a law firm's marketing.

But they come with different responsibilities.

With testimonials, firms need to pay attention to how endorsements are identified, whether payment is disclosed, who is providing the statement, and what expectations the statement creates.

With case results, firms need to look beyond the dollar amount. They must consider how the outcome is described, whether the necessary context is provided, whether the result disclaimer is properly presented, and whether the advertisement creates unrealistic expectations about what another client can achieve.

Neither should be treated as a simple marketing task.

The most effective approach is to review content before publication, obtain the appropriate client consent, verify every claim, and make compliance checks part of your firm's regular marketing process.

Your firm's reputation is built on trust. Make sure your testimonials, case results, and every other marketing message reflect that same standard.