Can a law firm publish case results?

This usually comes up as a disclaimer question. Can we put the verdicts on the site, and what do we have to write underneath them?

The disclaimer is the easy half. The half that gets missed is that a case result is information relating to a representation, and the duty of confidentiality doesn't switch off because a document is public. Two separate rules are in play, and firms tend to check one.

What follows is general information about the model rules, not legal advice, and your state's rules control. This is one of the areas where states diverge most, so treat it as a map of the questions rather than the answers.

Rule 7.1: the expectation you create

Start with the rule that everyone does check. ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services. Nothing in it bans reporting results.

What the comments add is the standard that actually governs a results page: a communication that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements on behalf of clients may be misleading if it's presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters, without reference to the specific facts and law of each case.

Notice the word "presented." The verdicts can all be real and the page can still fail, because the test is the conclusion a reader draws. That's the same standard that governs every other claim on your site, applied to the most persuasive content on it.

In practice, that turns into a few design questions. A grid of eight seven-figure numbers with no context invites exactly the inference the comment describes. The same eight matters, each with a sentence about what was at issue and why the outcome landed where it did, invites a different one. Selection matters too: publishing only your best results, with no indication that they're the best, omits a fact a reader would want.

Rule 1.6: the constraint firms forget

Here's the one that catches people.

Model Rule 1.6(a) says a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b). That's a broad duty. It isn't limited to privileged communications, and it isn't limited to things that would embarrass the client.

The obvious objection is that a verdict is a matter of public record. The ABA addressed that directly. Formal Opinion 480, issued in March 2018 on confidentiality obligations for lawyer blogging and other public commentary, concluded that lawyers may not reveal information relating to a representation, including information contained in a public record, unless authorized by the rules. The opinion treats website postings and online articles as squarely within its scope.

So "anyone could look it up" is not the test. If a reader can connect what you published to a client, you've revealed information relating to that representation, and the fact that a determined person could have found it in a docket doesn't supply the authorization.

The same reasoning is why responding to a bad review is so constrained. The duty is the same duty; only the setting changes.

What informed consent actually means here

Consent is the route through. It has to be informed, which means the client understood what you were going to publish before they agreed to it.

1. Ask after the matter closes, not in the engagement letter. A blanket permission signed at intake, before anyone knows what the result will be, is hard to call informed about a specific disclosure.
2. Describe the actual disclosure. The result, the level of detail, whether the client is named, and where it will appear. Consent to "a case study" isn't consent to a number and a name on the homepage.
3. Get it in writing, and keep it with the file. Not because a rule necessarily requires the writing, but because the question you'll one day have to answer is what the client agreed to.
4. Treat the scope as fixed. Consent for a written summary isn't consent to reuse it in a video, an ad, or a pitch deck two years later.
5. Make declining easy and free. A former client who feels pressure to agree is a problem in itself, and a firm that publishes over a soft no has a worse problem.
6. Check whether anything else identifies the matter. A rare fact pattern, a named opposing party, an unusual venue, or a date can identify a client as reliably as a name.

What your state adds

The model rules are the floor. Several states require a specific disclaimer, and at least one prescribes the words.

New York's advertising rule requires the disclaimer "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" on advertising that includes statements reasonably likely to create an expectation about results, comparisons with other lawyers, or characterizations of the quality of a lawyer's services. Additional language is permitted where it doesn't contradict or undermine the disclaimer, but substitute wording isn't. Other states word their requirements differently, some tie them to particular media, and some leave the question to the general Rule 7.1 standard.

Two things follow. First, you have to read your own rule rather than copying a competitor's disclaimer, because the competitor may be in a different state or may simply be wrong. Second, a required disclaimer is a separate obligation from Rule 7.1, so satisfying it doesn't mean the page is fine — a page whose overall impression contradicts the disclaimer is still misleading with the disclaimer on it.

What a defensible results section looks like

Assume you have consent and you've read your state's rule. The page still has to be built.

The version that survives scrutiny tends to share a few traits. Each entry says what the matter was about, not just what the number was. It notes something about why the outcome landed where it did, which is the reference to specific facts and law the comment asks for. It doesn't imply the sample is representative if it isn't. And it doesn't lean on the numbers to do the persuading, because a reader who is deciding whether to call you is mostly trying to work out whether you've handled a situation like theirs.

That last point is worth sitting with, because it's also why results pages underperform their reputation. A prospective client with a live problem is asking three questions: do you handle this, what happens next, and can I trust you. A recovery figure answers none of them directly. The elements that actually build trust on a law firm site are duller and work better.

If you can't publish results, or won't

Plenty of firms land here — the practice area makes consent awkward, the matters are too identifiable, or the partners simply don't want to. That's a workable position, not a handicap.

What fills the space is description rather than outcome. Matter types you handle and what the work involves at each stage. The questions clients actually ask, answered plainly, which is the same content that an engine can lift and a client can use. Process transparency: how long things take, what you need from them, what it costs. Credentials a reader can independently verify, which is the part Google's quality framework and a nervous human are both looking for.

Confidentiality still applies to these. A "case study" with no name but a distinctive fact pattern can identify a client perfectly well, which is why the general version is usually the safer and, for a stranger deciding whether you handle their problem, the more useful one.

The one temptation to name out loud

A results page is the single most tempting page on a law firm website to invent. The numbers are persuasive, nobody audits them, and a vendor filling a template will happily supply placeholder figures that quietly become permanent.

Don't. Beyond the obvious rule problem, an invented result is a claim you can never substantiate if anyone asks, and it sits on the page that a careful prospective client reads hardest. If a number can't be traced to a matter with documented consent, it doesn't belong on the site.

The short version

You can usually publish results. Rule 7.1 governs how they're presented and whether a reader ends up expecting the same outcome. Rule 1.6 governs whether you're allowed to disclose the matter at all, and the ABA has said that reaches information already sitting in a public file. Get informed consent after the matter closes, read your own state's disclaimer requirement, and build the page so the context is doing the work instead of the numbers.