What ASA, CMA and SRA Rules Actually Require From Your Law Firm's Online Marketing

Most solicitors understand they're regulated by the SRA. Fewer realise their website also falls under the Advertising Standards Authority's remit, and that the Competition and Markets Authority has issued specific guidance on legal services marketing.

Here's how the three frameworks interact:

• SRA Standards and Regulations — Professional conduct rules that govern how solicitors may advertise services, including requirements around accuracy, not misleading clients, and maintaining public trust in the profession
• ASA CAP Code — The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising applies to solicitor websites, including SEO content, landing pages, and paid search ads. The ASA can investigate complaints and publish rulings against non-compliant firms
• CMA Legal Services Guidance — Following the 2016 market study, the CMA issued specific recommendations on transparency that informed the SRA Transparency Rules. The CMA can take enforcement action for misleading practices

The practical implication: a single misleading claim on your website could trigger action from any or all three bodies. Your "Areas of Expertise" page isn't just marketing copy—it's a regulated statement that must meet multiple compliance standards.

This guidance reflects regulations as of 2024. Verify current rules with each regulatory body and seek professional advice for firm-specific compliance questions.

The CAP Code's core principle is simple: marketing communications must not mislead. For solicitor websites, this has specific implications that many firms overlook.

Claims requiring substantiation:

• "Leading" or "top" claims must be objectively verifiable—directory rankings, peer reviews, or recognised awards
• Success rate claims need documented evidence and appropriate context
• Experience claims ("over 30 years combined experience") must be accurate and current
• Specialism claims should reflect genuine expertise, not aspirational positioning

Comparison advertising rules:

Comparing your firm to competitors is permitted but tightly controlled. Comparisons must be verifiable, objective, and not discredit other firms. Claiming you're "better" than competitors without evidence violates the Code.

Testimonials and endorsements:

Client testimonials must be genuine, verifiable, and representative. You cannot cherry-pick only exceptional outcomes without context. The ASA has ruled against firms using testimonials that implied typical results when they were actually outliers.

SEO content is not exempt:

Blog posts, practice area pages, and location landing pages all constitute marketing communications under the CAP Code. Writing content "for SEO" doesn't create a compliance exemption.

The CMA's 2016 legal services market study found that consumers struggled to compare legal service providers and make informed choices. This directly influenced the SRA Transparency Rules that took effect in December 2018.

Mandatory transparency information:

For certain services, your website must now publish:

• Price information (or the basis for calculating fees)
• The services included in that price
• Typical timescales
• Contact details and regulatory status
• Complaints procedures, including access to the Legal Ombudsman

Services requiring price transparency:

The current list includes conveyancing (residential), probate (uncontested), motoring offences, employment tribunal claims (unfair/wrongful dismissal), debt recovery (up to £100,000), and immigration (applications and appeals).

The CMA's ongoing role:

Beyond these specific rules, the CMA can investigate firms for potentially misleading practices under consumer protection law. Vague pricing ("fees from £500") without context, hidden charges, or unclear service scope can attract CMA scrutiny.

Commercial impact:

Firms often view transparency rules as a burden. However, clear pricing information can improve conversion rates—consumers increasingly expect upfront costs and may abandon websites that require a phone call to learn basic fee information.

Beyond the Transparency Rules, the SRA Standards and Regulations contain specific provisions affecting marketing activity. These sit within the broader framework covered in our SRA Compliance and SEO guide.

Relevant SRA Principles:

• Principle 2 — Act with integrity. Marketing that exaggerates or misleads violates this principle
• Principle 4 — Act with honesty. Claims about results, expertise, or firm capabilities must be truthful
• Principle 5 — Maintain public trust. Marketing that brings the profession into disrepute—aggressive tactics, ambulance-chasing approaches—breaches this duty

Code of Conduct requirements:

Paragraph 8.9 specifically addresses publicity: it must not be misleading. This applies to all marketing channels including websites, directories, social media, and search advertising.

Referral arrangements and introducer fees:

If your SEO strategy involves affiliate arrangements, paid referrals, or introducer relationships, specific SRA rules apply. These must be disclosed appropriately and structured correctly to avoid regulatory breaches.

Claims verification:

Unlike the ASA (which investigates on complaint), the SRA can proactively review firm websites during routine inspections. Maintaining evidence files for marketing claims is prudent risk management, not just complaint defence.

Compliant SEO content isn't about avoiding all marketing claims—it's about making defensible claims with appropriate evidence and context.

Before publishing any service page or blog post, verify:

1. Accuracy — Can you evidence every factual claim? "We've handled hundreds of cases" requires records. "We focus on employment law" is safer than "We're employment law experts" unless expertise is demonstrable
2. Currency — Is your information current? Regulatory requirements change. Case results become dated. "Recent changes to employment law" needs updating
3. Context — Have you provided appropriate caveats? Case results should note that outcomes vary. Fee estimates should clarify what's included and excluded
4. Balance — Are testimonials representative? If you show five five-star reviews, do you have fifty? Or five?

Documentation practice:

Maintain a compliance file for your website content. For each substantive claim, record:

• The claim as published
• Evidence supporting the claim
• Date last verified
• Scheduled review date

This practice protects against ASA complaints, supports SRA inspection responses, and creates a discipline that improves content quality generally.

Understanding enforcement reality helps calibrate compliance effort appropriately. Not all risks are equal.

ASA complaint and investigation:

Complaints typically come from competitors, consumers, or monitoring bodies. The ASA investigates, requests substantiation, and publishes rulings. Published rulings appear in search results—"[Firm Name] ASA ruling"—creating reputational damage beyond any formal sanction. Most firms settle by amending content before formal ruling.

SRA regulatory action:

The SRA can impose conditions, issue written rebukes, or refer serious matters to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Marketing violations alone rarely reach SDT, but they can compound other concerns during investigations. The SRA's risk-based approach means firms with previous issues face greater scrutiny.

CMA enforcement:

The CMA can pursue enforcement under consumer protection legislation. This is rarer for individual firms but has occurred in legal services. More commonly, the CMA issues sector-wide guidance that informs subsequent SRA rule changes.

Practical risk assessment:

In our experience working with law firms, the highest-risk areas are:

• Success rate claims without methodology disclosure
• "No win, no fee" advertising without adequate terms disclosure
• Specialism claims for practice areas with minimal actual caseload
• Testimonials that imply designed to outcomes

Lower-risk content includes general educational material, properly attributed awards, and appropriately caveated case examples.

This is educational content, not legal advice. Firms should consult their compliance officers and, where appropriate, seek professional regulatory advice.