Day: September 1, 2026

The advertising rules do not stop at English. What happens to your compliance when your law firm website is translated, and why the untranslated disclaimer is the worst case.

Colorado faced it first: how do you advertise legal services to an industry lawful under state law and prohibited federally? The error is collapsing the two.

Missouri is a prescribed-wording state, and verbatim disclaimers are a different engineering problem from a general duty not to mislead. Cited as Rule 4-7.1, not 7.1.

Nashville is drawing out-of-state firms fast, which makes Rule 7.5 – firm names, offices and of counsel – the provision that actually matters in Tennessee.

Maryland renumbered its rules, so every checklist keyed to Rule 7.1 silently skips it and reports nothing rather than a gap. Plus the three-jurisdiction DC metro problem.

South Carolina is a filing state with prescriptive content rules, and the most consistently overlooked strict jurisdiction in the country. Strictness does not track market size.

Utah built a supervised regulatory sandbox where Arizona deregulated outright. The two states are the entire evidence base for where US legal regulation is heading.

Massachusetts has a powerful consumer protection statute with a private right of action sitting alongside its ethics rules. Why that changes how you assess marginal claims.

Michigan advertising rules are terse, but no-fault reform left a large body of well-ranking content describing superseded law. Stale content is a misleading communication.