Skip to main content

Rule 7.2 Advertising

Information About Legal Services

(a) A lawyer may communicate information regarding the lawyer’s services through any media.

(b) A lawyer shall not compensate, give or promise 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 not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service;

(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17;

(4) refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if:

(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive; and

(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement; and

(5) give nominal gifts as an expression of appreciation that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s services.

(c) A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless:

(1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate authority of the state or the District of Columbia or a U.S. Territory or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and

(2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.

(d) Any communication made pursuant to this Rule shall include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.

Amendment history: Amended December 3, 1996, effective March 4, 1997; amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014; amended June 25, 2019, effective September 1, 2019; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. Public censure. — Attorney licensed to practice in Wyoming and Utah was publicly censured, because he ran advertisements in the telephone directory that violated this rule. The ads were missing the attorneys office address; one ad was missing a disclaimer; and two ads had the required disclaimer in a type size smaller than the smallest type size appearing in the ad. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Metler, 2012 WY 26, 273 P.3d 507, 2012 Wyo. LEXIS 28 (Wyo. 2012).