Rule 7, clause by clause
Rule 7 of the LPC Code of Conduct is the single rule most law firm websites fall foul of, because it is also the rule most agencies never read. Below is each operative clause matched to the page on your site where it is most commonly breached.[1]
| Clause | Requirement | Page it's usually breached on |
|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | Publicity includes any medium, including electronic and social | LinkedIn company page, Google Business profile |
| 7.2(a) | Must not bring the profession into disrepute | Aggressive "we win" claims on the homepage |
| 7.2(b) | Must not misrepresent the service offered | Service pages listing practice areas not actually handled in-house |
| 7.2(c) | Must not compare or disparage other practitioners | "Unlike other firms" copy on the about page |
| 7.2(d) | No client named without prior written consent | Testimonials and case study pages |
| 8.1 | No specialisation claim without LPC Council recognition | Hero headings, meta titles ("Specialist Attorneys") |
Why the meta title matters as much as the visible page
Rule 7.1's broad "any medium" language means search snippets and meta titles count as publicity. A page that reads compliantly to a visitor but has "Leading Specialist Divorce Attorneys" in its `<title>` tag is still non-compliant - and it's often the last place firms check.
Frequently asked questions
Does this apply to a firm's individual LinkedIn profiles?
Yes. Rule 7.1 explicitly covers electronic and social media, and the obligation attaches to the individual practitioner, not just the firm's official channels.
What's the practical fix for existing testimonials with no consent record?
Anonymise them (role/matter type instead of name) until you can obtain and document written consent, or remove them. Do not wait for a complaint to address this - it's one of the easiest breaches to identify.