A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. Adopted 01/01/05 Amended 12/01/06: Paragraph (a)(5) reworded to conform to former DR 2-101(A)(5). Amended 01/01/14: Model Rule 7.1 language substituted for former RPC 7.1. Comparison to Oregon Code The rule retains the essential prohibition against false or misleading communications, but not the specifically enumerated types of communications deemed misleading. Comparison to ABA Model Rule This is the ABA Model Rule.


(a) Subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media. (b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a lawyer referral service; and (3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17. (c) Any communication made pursuant to this rule shall include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. Adopted 01/01/05 Amended 01/01/14: Revised to track more closely Model Rule 7.2 and eliminate redundant language. Amended 01/01/17: Revised to remove “not-for-profit” from (2) and to require listing “contact information” in lieu of “office address.”

Defined Terms

(see Rule 1.0): “Law firm” Comparison to Oregon Code This rule retains DR 2-103’s permission for advertising in various media, provided the communications are not false or misleading and do not involve improper inperson contact. It retains the prohibition against paying another to recommend or secure employment, with the exception of a legal service plan or not-for-profit lawyer referral service. The rule also continues the requirement that communications contain the name and office address of the lawyer or firm. Comparison to ABA Model Rule This rule is drawn from and is very similar to the ABA Model Rule, except that the MR allows payment only to a lawyer referral service approved by an appropriate regulatory agency. The MR also permits reciprocal referral agreements between lawyers and between lawyers and nonlawyer professionals, which is directly contradictory to Oregon RPC 5.4(e).


A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by any means when: (a) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional or mental state of the subject of the solicitation is such that the person could not exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer; (b) the person who is the subject of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or (c) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment. Adopted 01/01/05 Amended 01/01/14: The title is changed and the phrase “target of the solicitation” or the word “anyone” is substituted for “prospective client” to avoid confusion with the use of the latter term in RPC 1.8. The phrase “Advertising Material” is substituted for “Advertising” in paragraph (c). Amended 01/01/17: Deleting requirement that lawyer place “Advertising Material” on advertising. Amended 01/11/18: Deleting requirements specific to “inperson, telephone or real-time electronic contact” and deleting exception for prepaid and group legal service plans Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): “Electronic communication” “Known” “Knows” “Matter” “Reasonable” “Reasonably should know” “Written” Comparison to Oregon Code This rule incorporates elements of DR 2-101(D) and (H) and DR 2-104. Comparison to ABA Model Rule This rule closely mirrors the Model Rule, although the MR has no counterpart to paragraph (b)(1).


Back to All Attorney Advertising Laws