A quick note before we go further: this article is written from a marketing perspective, not a legal one. Every state bar has its own version of the advertising rules, and some apply stricter limits than others — particularly around testimonials and results claims. Nothing here should be treated as a final answer for your specific firm. The goal is to give you a framework for the conversation you should be having with your own bar association or counsel before any case study content publishes.

That framework matters because “what can we publish” is a question a lot of firms avoid asking directly — either they publish results content without checking the rules closely, or they avoid the topic entirely and lose a legitimate way to demonstrate real capability. Neither extreme serves the firm well. There’s a middle path that most firms can find: content that’s genuinely useful to a prospective client, framed in a way that respects the advertising standard rather than testing its edges.

Why legal case studies work differently than other industries

A software company can publish a case study bragging about a client’s results with almost no restriction beyond basic honesty. A law firm operates under a different standard, because the stakes of a misleading results claim are different: a prospective client reading a personal injury case study might reasonably infer that a similar outcome awaits them, when in reality every case depends on its own specific facts.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or their services. Its accompanying Comment goes further, noting that truthfully reporting a lawyer’s results can still be misleading if it’s presented in a way that would lead a reasonable person to expect a similar result in their own matter, without reference to the specific facts of each case.

That’s the core tension this entire topic sits inside: firms want to show proof of results, and the profession’s advertising standard exists specifically to prevent that proof from becoming an implied promise. Good case study content threads that needle rather than ignoring it.

Why this tension is worth taking seriously, not working around

It can be tempting to view advertising rules as an obstacle to good marketing — something to minimize or route around with clever framing. We’d push back on that framing. The underlying concern the rules are addressing is a real one: a prospective client in a vulnerable, high-stakes situation could genuinely be misled by a results claim presented without context, and that harm is worth preventing regardless of what the rules technically require. Content built with that concern in mind, rather than content built to satisfy the minimum the rules require, tends to be both more compliant and more genuinely trustworthy to the reader.

What bar rules typically restrict

State bars adopt their own versions of the ABA Model Rules, and some apply stricter limits than others — a handful of states have historically restricted or prohibited certain uses of testimonials outright. We’re not going to name a specific state’s current rule here, because bar rules change, and a specific claim that was accurate when this was written could be outdated by the time you’re reading it. What stays constant is the underlying principle: check your firm’s specific state bar rules before publishing anything that includes a results claim or a client testimonial.

What tends to draw scrutiny across jurisdictions

• Results claims presented without context about the specific facts that produced them.
• Testimonials that could be read as implying a guaranteed or typical outcome.
• Client information disclosed without appropriate consent or anonymization.
• Language that could reasonably be read as a promise, even if unintentional.

How to anonymize and frame results ethically

Anonymized case narratives — changed names, generalized facts, no identifying details — are a common approach firms use to share proof of capability without exposing client-specific information. It’s worth being direct about a limit here: anonymization alone doesn’t automatically satisfy every state’s advertising rule. It reduces certain risks (client confidentiality, identifiability) but doesn’t by itself resolve the “unjustified expectation” concern the ABA Comment describes, if the narrative still implies a guaranteed or typical result.

The stronger approach combines anonymization with explicit context: describing the general type of matter, the general approach taken, and being clear that outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case — language that keeps the content honest about what it can and can’t promise a different reader.

What “genuine” anonymization actually requires

Superficial anonymization — changing a name but keeping every other identifying detail (specific dollar amount, specific location, unique fact pattern) — often doesn’t actually protect client confidentiality, because a reader who knows the client or the situation may still be able to identify them. Genuine anonymization usually means generalizing several details at once: the specific figures, the specific timeline, and any unusual facts that would make the matter identifiable to someone familiar with it.

This is also where client consent matters, independent of the advertising-rule question. Even a properly anonymized case narrative may raise confidentiality questions depending on what the client agreed to when they engaged the firm — another reason this is a conversation for the firm’s own counsel, not a marketing decision made in isolation.

What builds trust without overpromising outcomes

Process-focused content tends to be a safer and often equally effective alternative to results-focused case studies. Describing how the firm approaches a type of matter — what the intake process looks like, how the firm evaluates a case, what a client should expect — builds trust through demonstrated competence rather than a specific outcome claim, and it doesn’t carry the same “unjustified expectation” risk.

This reframe is worth taking seriously rather than treating as a consolation prize for firms that can’t publish flashy results content. Prospective clients, especially in a stressful situation, are often more reassured by a clear explanation of what to expect than by a large settlement figure they have no way to evaluate the relevance of to their own case. A results claim is impressive in the abstract; a clear, specific explanation of process is useful in the moment a prospective client is actually reading it, trying to decide whether to reach out.

Content formats that work within constraints

• Anonymized case narratives with explicit disclaimers about case-by-case variation, checked against your state bar’s specific rules.
• General case-type descriptions that explain the kind of matters the firm handles without describing a specific case’s outcome.
• Process and expectation-setting content that demonstrates expertise through depth of explanation rather than a results claim.
• Client testimonials, where permitted by the firm’s state bar, framed to represent the client’s genuine experience rather than an implied guarantee.

Formats worth using with extra caution

Aggregate statistics (“we’ve recovered over $X for our clients”) sit in a gray area — they don’t name a specific case, but they can still create an unjustified expectation if presented without context about the range of outcomes involved. If a firm wants to use this kind of aggregate claim, it should be reviewed with the same care as a specific results claim, not treated as automatically safer just because it’s not tied to one named case.

What to ask before you publish

• Does this content include a specific results claim, and if so, does it include the case-by-case context the ABA Comment describes?
• Has this been checked against our specific state bar’s current rules on testimonials and results? This should go to your bar association or counsel, not a marketing team’s judgment alone.
• Is any client-identifying information exposed, even indirectly? Anonymization needs to be genuine, not superficial.
• Could a reasonable reader come away expecting a similar result in their own case? If yes, the framing needs more context before it publishes.
• If this content ever needed to be defended to a bar association, would the framing hold up? This is a useful gut-check independent of whether a formal review has happened yet.

None of this is meant to discourage firms from showing proof of capability — it’s meant to make sure that proof is built to last. Content that’s structured carefully from the start rarely needs to be pulled down or rewritten later, which is a better outcome for the firm than publishing quickly and hoping nobody raises a question.