Ethics in Brief: New Advertising and Solicitation Statutes

By David C. Carr

On January 1, 2026, two significant bills concerning lawyer advertising and solicitation became effective, SB 37 and AB 931.  This legislation changes existing statutes in the State Bar Act (Business & Professions Code Chapter 4) and adds new ones in Article 9 (Solicitation) and Article 9.5 (Lawyer Advertising).  The impetus for these new laws is Legislative concern about what is perceived as a dramatic increase in advertising and solicitation. This includes advertising both by lawyers and by Alternative Business Structures (ABS) located outside of California that allow non-lawyer equity investment. Recent high-profile news stories about solicitation of clients after the Los Angeles wildfires in 2025 and in the Los Angeles County sex abuse case have pushed this new law.

The impact of these new laws is uncertain.  In 1994, the Legislature enacted the statutes in Article 9.5 in response to the surge of lawyer advertising on television and radio, including stricter standards for advertising by electronic media. At the dawn of the internet era, the Legislature had the foresight to include advertisement by computer networks in its definition of electronic media (Bus. & Prof. Code §6157(c).) 

Some have blamed a singular media event, attorney Larry Parker’s “Larry Parker Got Me $2.1 Million!” television ad, for these laws (among ethics lawyers, these are sometimes referred to as the “Larry Parker Law.”) But while the Larry Parker Law provides for discipline, enforcement of these statutes by the State Bar has been scant to non-existent.  This lack of enforcement has been cited as a reason for the new civil litigation remedies in the recently enacted statutes.  

Here is a summary of the new changes. This is not meant as a substitute for actually reading the statutes, consulting with Ethics Hotlines, including the San Diego County Bar Association Legal Ethics Hotline, or an experienced ethics lawyer where appropriate. 

Section 6153 (SB 37)

New subsection (c) allows any person to bring a civil action for violation of section 6152, the statute that also criminalizes “capping”.  Remedies are damages ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is larger, attorney fees, injunctive relief or “such other relief as the court deems proper.”

New subsection (d) says Court may consider, when assessing damages,  “any one or more of the relevant circumstances presented by the case, including, but not limited to, the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the number of violations, the persistence of the misconduct, the length of time over which the misconduct occurred, the willfulness of the defendant’s misconduct, and the defendant’s assets, liabilities, and net worth.”

Section 6155 (SB 37)

New subsection (g) is added to the Legal Referral Services statute: This section shall not be construed to prohibit attorneys from jointly advertising their services.  (1) Permissible joint advertising, among other things, satisfies both of the following:

(A) The advertisement identifies by name the advertising attorneys or law firms whom the consumer of legal services may select and initiate contact with.

(B) Each participating attorney or law firm shall have executed a joint advertising agreement with the entity managing the joint advertising agreement with the entity managing the joint advertising services, under which the attorney or law firm expressly takes liability for the content of the advertising.

Section 6155.1 (AB 931)

Violations of section 6155 are now subject to a civil penalty in actions brought under section 17206 (unfair business practice) or section 17536 (false advertising) by the Attorney General, a district attorney or by the State Bar.

Section 6156 (AB 931)

Establishes a prohibition on dividing fees with out-of-state ABS, unless licensed in that state,  fees are for legal services provided in that state, and the law of that state controls under Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5.^[1]

Violation is a cause for discipline and statutory damages, as in the new section 6153(c).

Section 6156.5 (SB 37)

Violation of section 6155 is subject to civil damages as in new section 6153(c) (capping).

Section 6157 (SB 37)

New definition in subsection (a): “Advertise” or “advertisement” means any written, recorded, or electronic means of communication, including public media, that is subject to compliance with this article or the State Bar Act or the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

New definition in subsection (b) “Lawyer” means a licensee of the State Bar of California or a person who is admitted, is in good standing, and is eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court of the District of Columbia or any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, or is licensed to practice law in, or is admitted, is in good standing, and is eligible to practice before the  the highest court of a foreign country or any political subdivision thereof, and includes any agent of the lawyer, law firm, or law corporation doing business in the state.

Section 6157.2 (SB 37)

New subsection (a)(1) prohibits “A guarantee, warranty, or prediction of success regarding the outcome of a legal matter as a result of the representation by the licensee.

New subsection (a)(5) prohibits “references to past results unless the information is objectively verifiable and does not omit facts necessary to make it not misleading.”

New subsection (a)(6) prohibits “statements, words, or phrases that characterize a lawyer’s or law firm’s skills, experience, reputation, or record, unless the characterization is objectively verifiable.”

New subsection (a)(7) prohibits “references to a lawyer’s membership in, recognition by, or awards from, an organization, unless the entity conferring the membership, recognition, or award is generally recognized within the legal profession as being a bona fide organization that makes its selection based on uniformly applied criteria and that includes among its members those recognized as a reasonable cross section of the legal community the entity purports to cover.”

New subsection (b) requires that an advertisement  conspicuously contain the name of “at least one California admitted lawyer, the law firm, and the certified LRS responsible for the advertisement,” and “the city, town, or county of at least one bona fide office location.”

New subsection (c)provides thatviolation of this section is subject to civil action for damages similar to new section 6153(c).

New subsection (d) provides that a court must take into account the same factors as set forth in new section 6153(d).

New subsection (e) provides thata right of action exists independently of any enforcement action or inaction by any government agency or official.

Section 6158.4 (SB 37)

New section 6158.4 creates a civil enforcement mechanism for violations of sections 6157.2, 6158, 6158.1, or 6158.3. It is long and convoluted, but here is the gist:

• A State Bar complaint must be made.
• Demand to withdraw the ad must be made. If withdrawn, the complainant can take no further action.
• State Bar must determine whether violations exist within 21 days (!). “The review shall be conducted by a State Bar attorney who has expertise in the area of lawyer advertising.”^[2]
• If State Bar determines a violation exists, advertiser can withdraw the ad from electronic media within 72 hours, other media, notice of withdrawal within 72 hours, withdraw as soon as practicable, not to exceed 30 days.
• If not withdrawn, civil action may be commenced within one year.
• Licensee or certified LRS can bring a declaratory relief action.
• State Bar review process applies only to licensees, certified LRS, or joint advertisers under section 6155. Complainant can file a civil action against other advertisers on 14 days’ notice within one year.
• Amounts recovered must be paid to CSF.  Attorneys’ fees may be awarded.
• Other legal remedies (i.e., unfair business practice, deceptive advertising) can still be maintained.

Section 6158.5 (SB 37)

Article 9.5 applies to “all lawyers, licensees, law partnerships, law corporations, entities subject to regulation under Section 6155, advertising collectives, cooperatives, or other individuals, including nonlawyers, or groups advertising the availability of legal services.”

AB 931 also adds new Sections 6250-6256, entitled Consumer Legal Funding Act. This does not primarily regulate lawyer advertising and solicitation, but it should be closely read by any California lawyer who might be using or contemplating using litigation funding services.

Whether this blizzard of new laws will ultimately be enforced or will lead to any dramatic changes in the advertising and marketing practices prevalent in the profession remains to be seen.  So far, no one has mounted a First Amendment challenge to any of them (see https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/central-hudson-test/).  Many lawyers are seeking guidance from ethics counsel on how to apply these new laws to their practices, so, in the end, the biggest impact may be on conscientious lawyers who regulate themselves.

^[1] Colorado has rcently enacted a similar prohibition, while in South Carolina, a recent ethics opinion has found that co-counseling with ABS with attendent fee division is unethical (Opinon 25-2). 

^[2] Given the State Bar’s lack of enforcement of lawyer advertising statutes and rules over many years, this might be a challenge, especially given the short evaluation period.