# New York Dropped the Attorney Advertising Disclaimers _On 1 June 2026 New York replaced its detailed advertising rules with ABA-style ones. The "Attorney Advertising" label and the prior-results disclaimer are both no longer required. Most New York firm sites still carry both, and not one competing guide mentions either was dropped._ **The short answer** **New York stopped requiring the "Attorney Advertising" label on 1 June 2026.** The Presiding Justices of all four Appellate Division Departments rewrote Article 7 along the lines of the American Bar Association's 2018 rules. The label in old Rule 7.1(f) went with the old framework. **You no longer need the "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" line either.** Old Rule 7.1(d) demanded it for claims about outcomes, comparisons and testimonials. That paragraph is gone, though keeping the sentence remains a sensible hedge on a page full of numbers. **Almost nothing written about this has caught up, and neither have most firm sites.** Most of the fourteen New York firm sites checked still carry both disclaimers. One footer even cites a rule number as the reason for a sentence that rule dropped. Rule changes are usually dull, and this one is worth ten minutes of your afternoon. It takes two things off your website and settles an argument you have probably had with a marketing vendor. Almost every page you will find about it still describes the old framework. What follows is what changed, what survived, what you can now say that you could not, and what New York firm websites actually look like nearly five months later. - **1 June 2026** - When the new Article 7 took effect in all four Departments - **Label gone** - Old Rule 7.1(f) no longer requires "Attorney Advertising" - **Name and contact** - The one labeling duty that survived, in new Rule 7.1(d) - **7.1(c)** - Where specialist claims live now that Rule 7.4 is gone ## What actually changed New York ran one of the most detailed lawyer advertising regimes in the country. The new rules drop most of that detail. They follow the ABA's 2018 approach instead, which sets principles rather than a checklist. | Old requirement | Where it lived | Now | | --- | --- | --- | | "Attorney Advertising" label | 7.1(f) | Eliminated | | Prior-results disclaimer | 7.1(d) | Eliminated | | No ads resembling legal documents | 7.1(c)(4) | Eliminated | | Disclosing actors and dramatizations | 7.1 | Eliminated | | Principal office address | 7.1(h) | No longer required | | Name and contact of a responsible lawyer | 7.1(h) | Kept, now 7.1(d) | | Specialist certification limits | Rule 7.4 | Moved to 7.1(c) | | Keeping solicitation recipient lists three years | 7.3 | Eliminated | | 30-day solicitation blackout after an incident | 7.3 | Eliminated | | Payment for referrals | Rule 7.2 | Unchanged | | Firm names and letterheads | Rule 7.5 | Kept, not ABA-aligned | Two changes sit underneath that table, and both of them matter more than any single row in it. **Rule 7.1 no longer singles out advertising,** because it now covers every communication about a lawyer or the lawyer's services. The amendments also struck the defined term "advertising" from the terminology rule. So the old game of arguing whether a page counted as an advertisement is over, because the rule reaches it either way. **The detailed content rules collapsed into one line.** A lawyer "shall not make a false or misleading communication." Nearly every box you used to tick now answers to that single standard. ## What the rule says now, in full Rule 7.1 is now short enough to read whole, which is a change in itself for anyone who remembers the old version. | Paragraph | What it says | | --- | --- | | 7.1(a) | "A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." | | 7.1(b) | "A lawyer may communicate information regarding the lawyer's services through any media." | | 7.1(c) | "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." | | 7.1(d) | "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." | Note what is missing: no labeling paragraph and no disclaimer paragraph anywhere in it. If somebody tells you New York still demands either one, ask which paragraph of which rule they mean. **Paragraph (d) carries the live duty,** because every communication must name a responsible lawyer or firm and give contact information. The commentary points to a phone number or a physical office address, so a contact form alone looks thin. The change is that the rule no longer demands the _principal office address_ as such. That is the part firms most often over-do. ## What you can say now that you could not before The specialist rules bite hardest here, and they are the easiest part to get backwards. New York deleted old Rule 7.4 outright and moved its subject into 7.1(c). What 7.1(c) bars is narrow: you may not imply a lawyer is a **certified** specialist unless a recognized body certified them and you name it. Saying you specialize is a different claim from saying you are certified. Saying your practice is focused on one area now passes, judged against the false-or-misleading standard like everything else. So "focuses on construction accident cases" sits comfortably. "Specializes in construction accidents" holds up if it is true. "Certified specialist in construction accident law" needs a certifier named in the same breath. The solicitation changes are the other practical shift. The old 30-day wait before reaching out after a mass tort, injury or wrongful death incident is gone. So is the duty to keep recipient lists for three years. The rule still bars live person-to-person solicitation for money, so the method matters even though the waiting period does not. **A rule number that will trip you up.** The specialist provision sits in a different place depending on the state. The ABA folded it into Rule 7.2(c) in 2018, states on the older numbering still carry it at Rule 7.4, and New York has now moved it to 7.1(c). Three locations for one idea, so cite the rule your own state puts out, not a number you found in an article. ## What New York firm sites actually look like now Nearly five months after the change, a check of fourteen New York firm sites covered their homepages, their disclaimer pages and their results pages. | On the site | Firms | | --- | --- | | Still shows "Attorney Advertising" | Most | | Still shows a prior-results disclaimer | Most | | Shows both | Most | | Shows neither | Two | | Publishes a phone number, still required | Almost all | | Publishes a street address, no longer required | Most | | Uses specialist or expert language | A third | | Names a certifying body alongside it | None | **Say the obvious thing first: none of this breaks a rule.** New York dropped both disclaimers rather than banning them. A firm showing them is doing something unnecessary, not something wrong. The same holds for law firm client testimonials. The state bar itself says the prior-results line still helps head off an argument that a results page misleads. What the pattern shows is how slowly a website keeps up with a rule book. The disclaimer sits in a footer template nobody has had a reason to open in years. One footer captures the whole problem in a line, reading "Attorney Advertising" and then "22 NYCRR 1200.1 Requirement: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." It cites a rule as the authority for a sentence that rule no longer demands. The citation also points at the terminology provision that these very amendments rewrote. The old required wording has become house style. Of the thirty-five pages checked, twenty-three carry a prior-results line, and twenty-two of those use the exact phrase "prior results do not guarantee." One page reaches for a "past results" variant instead. A rule written in 2007 outlived its own repeal by turning into a habit. ## The specialist row needs reading carefully A third of these firms use "specialist", "specialize" or "expert" somewhere on the site, and not one of them names a certifying body alongside it. Under old Rule 7.4 that combination caused trouble. Under new 7.1(c) it sits in the newly permitted zone, so long as nothing implies certification. On your own site, the test is not whether the word appears. It is whether a reader would hear a claim of formal certification. That shows what this change really did. It swapped a checklist for a judgment call, and a judgment call means reading your own pages. ## A footer, before and after Most of the work here happens in one template file. It renders on all of your law firm website pages, so it helps to see what the change looks like on a real page. A typical New York footer today reads something like this: the firm name, a copyright line, then "Attorney Advertising" and "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." Often a rule citation sits in there too. A New York firm needs none of those last three things any more. A footer that matches the new rule needs less than that. It needs the name of a lawyer or firm who owns the content, plus a way to reach them. A phone number does that job, and so does a street address. That is the whole of new Rule 7.1(d). If you publish verdicts or settlements, the prior-results line earns its place on those pages on the merits. It makes clear that one outcome does not predict the next, which is the argument you would have to win later on. Keeping it there is a choice about risk, and not a box the rule makes you tick. The citation is the part to delete at once. If a footer sends a reader to a paragraph number, that paragraph should still say what the footer says it says. ## If you practice in more than one state Three of the fourteen firms checked show admission or office language for another state, and that changes the answer for them. New York simplified its own rules on 1 June, and no other state did anything at all that day. A firm admitted in two states has to satisfy both, and a number of states still run the kind of detailed ad rules New York has just dropped. So for a firm in more than one state, the safe reading is that this change buys a smaller cleanup than it first looks. You can stop treating the old New York label as a New York obligation. You cannot say the same of a line another bar puts on you, and one footer reaches readers in every state at once. The practical move is to work out which rules actually bind the firm before anybody touches the footer template. For most firms that is a short list, and it is worth writing down once and keeping. ## Why almost everything written about this is wrong A check of eight guides ranking for these questions found something stark. Not one of them tells a reader that New York dropped the label or the prior-results line. Two of them still tell readers the label is mandatory, and one still says the same of the prior-results line. Three discuss Rule 7.4 as live law, and one lists it among current ABA model rules, which the ABA deleted in 2018. Another page in the set carefully explains amendments that took effect in February 2007, and still ranks for questions about today's rules. One page of the eight gets it right, naming the date and the rules amended, then adding that these are "adopted and are now in effect." That this needed saying tells you how much confusion was circulating. **What to do with a vendor's compliance advice.** Ask which paragraph of which rule, in which state, as published by that state. If they cannot point you to a live paragraph, it is a habit, a stale article, or another state's rule landing on you by mistake. That one test takes a minute, and it settles most of these arguments for good. ## What this does not change The change is real, but it is not a free pass, and several duties bind exactly as hard as they did before. - **False or misleading is still the whole ballgame.** Everything removed from the detailed rules is now judged against 7.1(a), which is broader rather than narrower. - **Name and contact information are still required** on any communication, under 7.1(d). - **Live person-to-person solicitation for money is still prohibited**, even though the blackout period is gone. - **Rule 7.2 governs payment for referrals exactly as before.** - **Firm names and letterheads** stay under New York's own Rule 7.5, which was deliberately not aligned with the ABA. - **Testimonials still need permission** to use a person's name, image and likeness, and remain regulated under federal advertising law whatever the bar rule says. - **Other states still have their own rules,** so if you are admitted anywhere else, or advertise into another state, nothing here speaks to that at all. ## What to change on your site Ordered by what the check found, for a firm admitted only in New York. - **Decide about the label deliberately.** You may remove "Attorney Advertising" or keep it. What you should not do is leave it there because nobody knows why it is there. - **Keep the prior-results line on results pages if you publish figures.** It is no longer required and it is still useful, which is the state bar's own position. - **Delete any rule citation attached to a disclaimer.** If the footer cites a paragraph, check that the paragraph still says what the footer claims, because one firm's plainly does not. - **Confirm a responsible name and real contact information appear.** This is the surviving obligation, and a phone number or physical address is the safe reading. - **Read your specialist language as a stranger would.** Permitted now, unless it implies certification you do not hold. - **Check your solicitation workflow against the new 7.3** if you ever paused outreach for thirty days after an incident. - **If you practice in more than one state, do this state by state.** New York got simpler; nowhere else did on 1 June. ## Common questions ### Does a New York law firm website still need "Attorney Advertising" on it? No. Old Rule 7.1(f) required that label, and New York eliminated it on 1 June 2026. You may keep it, but no current paragraph of Rule 7.1 asks for it. ### Is the "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" disclaimer still required in New York? No. Old Rule 7.1(d) required it for claims about expected outcomes, comparisons and testimonials, and that paragraph is gone. The state bar notes a lawyer may still want to use it to avoid an argument that a results page is misleading. ### When did New York's new advertising rules take effect? 1 June 2026, adopted by the Presiding Justices of all four Appellate Division Departments. The new Article 7 closely follows the advertising rules the American Bar Association adopted in 2018. ### Can a New York lawyer say they specialize in something now? Generally yes, judged against the false-or-misleading standard like everything else. What Rule 7.1(c) forbids is stating or implying you are certified as a specialist, unless an approved or accredited organization certified you and you name that organization. ### What happened to New York Rule 7.4? New York eliminated it and moved its subject into Rule 7.1(c). Any guide still describing Rule 7.4 as current New York law is out of date, and the ABA deleted its own 7.4 back in 2018. ### Is there still a waiting period before soliciting accident victims in New York? The amendments scrapped the 30-day blackout for mass tort, injury and wrongful death matters. They also scrapped the duty to keep recipient lists for three years. Live person-to-person solicitation for financial gain remains prohibited. **What to take away** - New York replaced its detailed advertising rules with ABA-style ones on 1 June 2026, across all four Departments. - The "Attorney Advertising" label from old 7.1(f) and the prior-results disclaimer from old 7.1(d) are both no longer required. - You may keep either one, and the prior-results line still works as a sensible hedge on a results page. - New 7.1(d) keeps the real obligation: a responsible name plus contact information, though not specifically the principal office address. - New York deleted Rule 7.4, and specialist claims now sit in 7.1(c), a third rule number for one idea. - Most New York firm sites checked still show both dropped disclaimers, and not one guide measured tells a reader New York dropped either. ## Where these figures come from Fourteen New York firm sites measured 23 October 2026, 35 pages in all: a homepage, a disclaimer or legal page and a results page where each exists. Collecting the domains meant running the commercial searches a New York firm competes for, across ten practice areas and metros. That makes this a convenience sample rather than a random one. Fourteen firms shows a pattern and cannot settle a rate. Exact counts: still showing the label 11 of 14; still showing a prior-results disclaimer 11 of 14; both 10 of 14; neither 2 of 14. Then publishing a phone number 12 of 14; publishing a street address 10 of 14. Specialist or expert language 5 of 14, and naming a certifying body 0 of 14. By page type: homepage label 10 and prior results 8; disclaimer page 9 and 9; results page, of nine, 5 and 6. Eleven of the fourteen name no other state. Three show admission or office language elsewhere, and this audit counts those three separately, though the figures above cover all fourteen. Of the 35 pages, 23 carry a prior-results line. Of those, 22 use the exact phrase "prior results do not guarantee" and 1 uses a "past results" variant. The total across all pages is 28 occurrences. A parallel check covered eight competing guides, mean 2,556 words, and one further candidate returned HTTP 403. The rule text here rests on two independent authoritative sources that agree. Those are the state bar's own account of the amendments and a separately maintained copy of the current rule. The court's own site refused every request from this environment, which is why the primary document does not appear. **Sources** - [NYSBA: the amendments](https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/The-Amendments-to-the-Advertising-Rules.pdf) — rule-by-rule account - [NYSBA: understanding the changes](https://nysba.org/understanding-changes-to-new-york-state-lawyer-advertising-rules/) - [NYSBA: amendments adopted](https://nysba.org/amendments-adopted-to-advertising-rules/) - [NYSBA: the effective date](https://nysba.org/events/ethical-marketing-of-your-law-practice-understanding-new-yorks-new-rules-on-lawyer-advertising/) - [New York Rule 7.1](https://www.courtrules.net/new_york/new-york-professional-conduct/rule-7-1) — current text - [Appellate Division amendments](https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/amendments-joint-rules-departments-appellate-division) - [ABA Model Rule 7.2](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_2_communications_concerning_a_lawyer_s_services_specific_rules/) - [ABA Model Rules](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/) - [Kansas Rule 7.4](https://www.courtrules.net/kansas/kansas-professional-conduct/rule-7-4) — the older numbering - [FTC endorsement guides](https://consumer.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking) - [NYSBA professional standards](https://nysba.org/attorney-resources/professional-standards/) Dropped is not banned. New York requires neither disclaimer and forbids neither. A firm still showing one is doing something unnecessary rather than something wrong, and nothing here marks any firm as non-compliant. Counts are per firm, because a disclaimer lives in a site-wide template. The court's own website returned an error to every request from this environment. So the rule text rests on two independent sources that agree rather than on the primary document. Anyone relying on this for a compliance decision should read the rule as their own Department publishes it.