Updated October 30, 2026. New York replaced its advertising rules on June 1, 2026, and an earlier version of this page still described the old ones: the prescribed “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome” disclaimer, the home-page rule and the hidden-code provision. We’ve rewritten the New York column and removed details we couldn’t confirm from current rule text, including Florida’s filing timing (now corrected to 20 days before first use), a Louisiana requirement to print a filing number in the ad, and Louisiana and Texas disclaimer specifics.
California is not the hard part. If your firm advertises in more than one state, your AI-generated content has to clear the strictest rule that applies, and some states add mechanisms a marketer reading the output would never catch: filing with the bar, prescribed disclaimer wording, and conditions on comparisons and “specialist” claims.
We wrote the companion guide to ABA Model Rule 7.1 because AI models are tuned to produce compelling, superlative, outcome-suggesting language, exactly the register bar-advertising rules restrict. Rule 7.1 is the floor. This piece looks at five states (Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Louisiana) as a spread of the mechanisms that catch AI content. Where we couldn’t confirm a detail from current rule text, we leave it out rather than print something we can’t stand behind.
The five states, side by side
| State | Governing rules | Comparisons and superlatives | Results and testimonials | “Specialist” / “certified” | File ads with the bar? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11–4-7.23 | Inherently misleading unless objectively verifiable (4-7.13(b)(3)) | Past results only if objectively verifiable; testimonials need a disclaimer that the prospective client may not obtain the same or similar results (4-7.13(b)(2), (b)(9)) | Restricted to certified lawyers | Yes, at least 20 days before first use, with a fee; firm websites are exempt (4-7.19, 4-7.20) |
| Texas | Texas Disciplinary Rules, Part VII | General false-or-misleading standard | General false-or-misleading standard | Restricted to certified lawyers | Yes, within 10 days after first dissemination, with a fee; optional advance review if filed 30+ days before (7.04); some communications are exempt (7.05) |
| New York | Rule 7.1, replaced June 1, 2026 with an ABA-style rule | General false-or-misleading standard | No prescribed disclaimer sentence in the new rule text | Only if certified by an approved authority or ABA-accredited organization, clearly named (new 7.1(c)) | No filing; each communication must name a lawyer or firm responsible for its content (new 7.1(d)) |
| New Jersey | RPC 7.1–7.5 and Advertising Guidelines | Comparisons need a named, substantiated source plus the disclaimer “No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey” | General standard | Restricted to certified lawyers | No filing |
| Louisiana | RPC 7.1–7.10 | Check current Rule 7.2 | Promises of results prohibited; check current Rule 7.2 for disclaimer wording | Restricted to certified lawyers | Yes, prior to or at first dissemination, with a fee; a filing number is assigned (7.7); some communications are exempt (7.8) |
The filing trap: three of these five make you file with the bar
A published advertisement in Florida, Texas or Louisiana can carry a duty to file the piece with the bar, a step no content-velocity workflow accounts for. The clocks differ. Florida wants the filing at least 20 days before first use, with a higher fee for late filings. Louisiana wants it prior to or at first dissemination. Texas runs the other way: file within ten days after first dissemination, or submit at least 30 days ahead for advance review.
Florida exempts lawyer and law firm websites from filing, and Texas and Louisiana list their own exemptions. Exempt from filing is not exempt from the content rules: an AI-written landing page still has to satisfy them.
Where the wording is prescribed
Most rules describe the substance a disclaimer must convey. A few prescribe the words, which means an AI model that paraphrases “helpfully” can produce a non-compliant page.
New Jersey ties its mandatory sentence to comparisons: “No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.” Florida requires testimonials to carry a disclaimer that the prospective client may not obtain the same or similar results. New York used to prescribe “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome”; that sentence isn’t in the rule that took effect on June 1, 2026, so a checklist built before then is out of date.
Where AI-generated content trips each of them
The failure modes from the Rule 7.1 guide don’t disappear across state lines.
Comparisons are gated, but the gate differs. Florida requires objective verifiability; New Jersey requires a named source and its disclaimer; New York and Texas apply the general misleading standard, under which an unsubstantiated comparison can still mislead. An AI reaching for “best,” “leading” or “most experienced” clears none of these by default.
Certification claims need an actual certification. All five restrict claims that a lawyer is a certified specialist to lawyers who hold the certification, and New York’s new rule requires the certifying organization to be clearly named. Whether plain “specialist” or “specializes in” wording is allowed varies by state, so check before an AI bio writes “our immigration specialist.” “Practice focused on” or naming the actual certification is the safer phrasing.
What a page tells a machine is still a communication. Structured data, alt text and metadata are part of what the page asserts, so a compliance screen should read them along with the visible text.
What this means if you run AI content in more than one state
The operating rule is simple to state and expensive to ignore: AI-generated content has to pass the strictest rule in your advertising footprint, not the most lenient. A firm in Florida and Texas has two filing regimes on two different clocks. A firm that built its checklist around New York’s old rules needs to rebuild it.
None of this is a reason to avoid AI-assisted content; it’s a reason to screen it before it ships. Compliance-first GEO means every public output is screened against ABA Model Rule 7.1 and each relevant state’s rules before publication, by a named reviewer, with a log. It is a content screen, not legal advice, and your firm’s supervising attorney holds the final pen. No agency controls the engines, and none can promise a citation, a ranking, or that a bar will never inquire.
Sources
- The Florida Bar, advertising filing requirements; Rule 4-7.13 text via floridajustice.com.
- Texas Rule 7.04 via the Texas Center for Legal Ethics.
- New York Appellate Division, joint order amending Rules 1.0, 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4, effective June 1, 2026; NYSBA, Amendments adopted to advertising rules.
- Louisiana Rule 7.7 via courtrules.net.
Last updated: October 30, 2026. General information for marketers, not legal advice. Rules change and are enforced case by case, so confirm current requirements with the relevant state bar or your supervising attorney.
Start with the foundation: AI search and ABA Rule 7.1, and what California’s 2023 AI guidance does and doesn’t cover.
About Legal Torch. Legal Torch is a generative engine optimization (GEO) agency that works only with law firms. We screen every public-facing deliverable against ABA Model Rule 7.1 and the firm’s state advertising rules before it publishes, and the firm’s attorney approves it. We measure AI visibility on each engine separately and never guarantee outcomes. See our GEO service and how the compliance review works.
