Attorney website content has to satisfy two audiences that judge it by different standards. Prospective clients want the procedural questions answered plainly before they will call. Regulators treat every page as a communication about a lawyer's services, which can be judged false or misleading regardless of how well it performs. Search adds a third layer of standards that has become explicit in Google's own published guidance about who wrote a page, how it was made and why it exists. This page covers what to publish, what the rules constrain, and how to brief an agency so the writing does not have to be unwound later.
What the pages need to do before they sell anything
The pages that earn calls in legal marketing are the ones that answer the question the searcher actually typed. Someone facing a first offence, a custody filing or an estate dispute is trying to understand a process before they consider hiring anyone, and the firm that explains the process clearly earns the call as a by-product. That means practice-area depth beats page volume: one thorough page per matter type, written by or with a lawyer who handles it, with the procedural steps, the realistic timeline, the decision points and an honest account of cost structure. Google's published guidance on helpful content asks whether the content provides original information or analysis rather than restating other sources, whether it offers substantial value compared with what already ranks, and whether it presents information in a way that makes you want to trust it. Legal content is unusually easy to test against those questions, because a page written by someone who has actually run the matter reads nothing like a page assembled from other firms' pages.
What the advertising rules constrain
Everything a firm publishes about its services is regulated by state professional conduct rules, and those rules vary by state; the specifics below come from North Carolina's adopted rules and your own bar's version controls. Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, including material misrepresentations and omissions of facts necessary to avoid deception, and statements likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve. Its commentary warns that reporting past client achievements can mislead if presented so as to suggest the same results could be obtained for other clients whose circumstances differ. Comparisons with other lawyers are prohibited unless the comparison can be factually substantiated. Rule 7.2 requires that any communication made under it include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content, and permits paying the reasonable costs of advertising while prohibiting giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services. Specialisation claims require certification by a recognised body, clearly identified in the communication. None of this is legal advice.
Authorship, expertise and the who-how-why test
Google's content guidance uses a framing that happens to align neatly with what a bar regulator wants to see. Who created the content should be self-evident, through bylines and author background rather than an anonymous voice. How it was created should be explainable, including any use of automation, with transparent disclosure. Why it exists should be to serve readers rather than to manipulate rankings. Google describes its systems as rewarding Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness, with trust the most important of the four, and it weights these more heavily for topics affecting money, health or safety, a category legal content plainly sits inside. In practice this means attorney bios attached to the pages they wrote or reviewed, real credentials, and a visible editorial process. It also means the responsible-lawyer attribution that Rule 7.2 requires is doing double duty: it is a compliance requirement and it is exactly the authorship signal Google's guidance asks for.
Testimonials, reviews and case results
Client stories are the most persuasive content a firm can publish and the most closely regulated. Two regimes apply at once. State conduct rules restrict statements likely to create unjustified expectations about results, which is why outcome claims usually need qualifying language. Federal advertising law applies separately: the FTC's endorsement guidance requires endorsements to reflect the endorser's honest opinion and actual experience, requires clear disclosure of any material connection a consumer would not expect, including payment, free products, family ties or employment, and requires that disclosure to accompany each endorsement rather than appear once on a home page. Incentivised reviews must disclose the incentive, incentives cannot be conditioned on positive reviews, and suppressing negative reviews while publishing positive ones is treated as deceptive. Critically for firms that outsource, the FTC states that delegating a promotional programme to an agency does not relieve the advertiser of responsibility under the FTC Act, and expects training, monitoring and regular compliance reporting.
Questions people ask about attorney website content
How many pages should a law firm website have?
Fewer, deeper pages usually outperform many thin ones. One thorough page per matter type the firm actually wants, written with the lawyer who handles it, beats a page for every keyword variation. Google's guidance warns against content mass-produced for traffic rather than written for readers.
Do we have to put a lawyer's name on every page?
Rules modeled on Rule 7.2 require any communication made under the rule to include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. Requirements vary by state, so check your own bar's rule. It is also a useful authorship signal for search.
Can we publish client testimonials on the site?
Usually yes, with care on both fronts. State rules restrict statements creating unjustified expectations about results, and the FTC requires endorsements to be honest, based on real experience, and accompanied by disclosure of any material connection. Delegating the programme to an agency does not shift responsibility away from the firm.
Can we use AI to write practice-area pages?
Google's guidance does not ban the tools; it asks creators to be transparent about how content is made, including any use of automation, and it warns against content that relies on automation mainly to chase rankings. For legal content the bigger risk is accuracy, so a lawyer must review every claim regardless of how the draft was produced.
Sources
- North Carolina State Bar - Rule 7.1, Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
- North Carolina State Bar - Rule 7.2, Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services: Specific Rules
- Google Search Central - Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
- FTC - The FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking