Short answer: Oregon attorney advertising is governed by Rules 7.1 through 7.5 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, overseen by the Oregon State Bar. Oregon amended its marketing rules in 2018 in the liberalising direction that many states have since followed, removing a good deal of prescriptive detail. This guide sets out the Oregon attorney advertising rules that apply to a law firm website, and makes an argument firms in relaxed states tend to resist: fewer specific requirements is a harder environment to work in, not an easier one.
A prescriptive rule tells you when you have complied. A general standard does not.
What liberalisation actually changed
The 2018 round of amendments, in Oregon and elsewhere, was a response to a real problem. The old advertising rules had accumulated detail that was hard to justify: lists of permitted content, restrictions on how a lawyer could describe their own practice, requirements that fitted print and broadcast and made little sense for a website. Removing that detail was sensible.
What it did not do was remove the core prohibition. Rule 7.1’s standard, that a communication about a lawyer’s services must not be false or misleading, is not a technicality that survived the cull. It is the entire point, and everything the detailed rules used to specify is still capable of violating it.
The practical effect is a shift in who does the work. Under a prescriptive regime, the rule tells you the answer and you follow it. Under a general standard, you have to form your own judgement about whether a reader would be misled, and you have to be able to defend it. Most firms have not noticed that the burden moved.
Where this bites: testimonials and reviews
Nowhere is the gap wider than on client feedback, because this is the area where the old rules were most prescriptive and the new environment is most permissive.
Firms hear “testimonials are allowed now” and treat that as the end of the analysis. It is the beginning. A testimonial is a communication about your services, made by you when you choose to publish it, and it is assessed the same way any other claim is.
The selection problem. A page showing twenty five-star reviews out of two hundred is a curated sample presented as a representative one. The individual reviews may be entirely genuine. The page can still leave a misleading impression, and the impression is the thing being regulated.
The outcome problem. “They got my charges dropped” is a client describing their experience. Placed on a criminal defence landing page above a contact form, it functions as a results claim, and results claims carry expectations about context that a quote in a carousel does not meet.
The confidentiality problem. This one is not an advertising rule at all, and it is the one that catches firms out. Publishing a testimonial that identifies a client and the matter involves information about the representation. The client’s enthusiasm is not the same thing as informed consent to publish, and the duty here sits outside the 7.x rules entirely.
The third-party problem. Reviews you did not solicit, on platforms you do not control, embedded into your site by a plugin. When you pull them onto your own pages you have made a publishing decision about them, whatever the widget’s defaults do.
A defensible testimonials page
| Element | Defensible | Risky |
|---|---|---|
| Selection | A stated, consistent basis for what appears | Only the best, presented as typical |
| Outcome language | Experience of working with the firm | Result claims without context |
| Client identity | Consent obtained and recorded | Full name and matter, no consent on file |
| Third-party reviews | Displayed unfiltered, or not at all | Feed filtered to five stars only |
| Placement | On its own page, in context | Result quotes beside a conversion form |
| Record | Dated copy of consent and source | Quote of unknown origin, years old |
The filtered-feed row deserves attention because it is usually invisible to the firm. Review plugins commonly ship with a minimum-rating setting, defaulted to four or five stars. Nobody chose that. It came with the plugin, and it converts an unfiltered feed into a curated one without anybody at the firm making a decision.
Why the honest version performs better anyway
There is a marketing argument here that runs alongside the professional one, and it is not a consolation prize.
A wall of five-star quotes is weak content. Readers discount it, because everyone has learned that a testimonials page shows the best available material. It is skimmed and forgotten. A smaller number of specific accounts, describing what the process was actually like, who the client dealt with, how long it took and what was difficult about it, is far more persuasive precisely because it is not obviously curated.
The version that is easier to defend and the version that converts better are the same version. That is the recurring theme of this series, and Oregon is where it is clearest: in a state that removed the detailed rules, the discipline has to come from somewhere, and “would a reader feel misled by this” turns out to be a decent editorial standard as well as a professional one.
Oregon attorney advertising rules: frequently asked questions
Which rules govern attorney advertising in Oregon?
The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, principally Rules 7.1 through 7.5, with oversight through the Oregon State Bar. Oregon amended its marketing rules in 2018, removing much of the prescriptive detail while leaving the prohibition on false or misleading communications intact.
Are testimonials allowed on an Oregon law firm website?
Testimonials are not categorically prohibited, but they are assessed like any other communication about your services. The questions that matter are whether the selection creates a misleading impression, whether quotes function as results claims, and whether you have consent to publish information about a client’s matter.
Do I need client consent to publish a testimonial?
Publishing material that identifies a client and their matter engages confidentiality duties that sit outside the advertising rules. A client volunteering praise is not the same as consenting to publication. Get consent, and keep a record of it.
Can I show only my five-star Google reviews?
Check what your review plugin is doing, because most have a minimum-rating filter enabled by default. Displaying a filtered feed as though it were your review profile is a selection decision, and it is the kind of decision the misleading standard is aimed at.
Does Oregon require advertising to be filed?
This guide does not state Oregon’s current filing or retention position, because those requirements change and are easy to describe out of date. Confirm with the Oregon State Bar.
Oregon attorney advertising rules: the short version
If you take one thing from this guide, take this: open your review widget’s settings and find out whether it is filtering by star rating. Then look at your testimonials page and ask whether a reasonable person would think it represents your clients generally. In a state that took the detailed rules away, that question is the rule.
Official source: the Oregon State Bar.
Legal Web Agency is a marketing agency, not a law firm, and nothing here is legal advice. No required disclaimer wording, filing requirement or consent procedure is quoted here. Confidentiality questions in particular are for counsel, not for a marketing agency. Confirm current requirements with the Oregon State Bar or your ethics counsel.
Related reading: Attorney Advertising Rules by State, plus the Washington, California and Nevada guides.
