BLOG POST
It's a tempting idea. You're trying to grow your law firm's online presence. Reviews drive new clients. Clients are busy. So why not offer a small thank-you — a $25 gift card, a discount on future services, a donation to charity in their name — to nudge satisfied clients into actually leaving the review they intended to leave anyway?
It's a question almost every attorney building out their marketing eventually asks. And the answer, in nearly every jurisdiction in the United States, is: no. Not even a small one. Not even framed as a thank-you. Not even if the client says they don't mind.
The reasons are layered — bar ethics rules, FTC consumer protection rules, Google's terms of service, and basic principles of testimonial honesty — and they overlap in ways that close almost every loophole an attorney might try to use. This post walks through what the rules actually say, why they're written this way, what's clearly prohibited, what falls in gray areas, and what attorneys can offer instead to drive review volume legitimately.
Offering anything of value in exchange for a review is prohibited under the ABA Model Rules and almost every state's version of them. The rules are broad on purpose: they cover money, gift cards, discounts on legal services, donations made in someone's name, free products, and any other quid-pro-quo arrangement.
This is true regardless of whether:
The rule is structural, not about intent. It's designed to ensure that public testimonials about legal services are uncompensated and reflect genuine client experience.
Three layers of rules govern this question. Understanding all three is necessary because each one closes loopholes the others leave open.
The headline rule. As amended in 2018, Rule 7.2(b) states that a lawyer shall not "compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services."
Three exceptions exist:
That third exception is narrower than it sounds. The official comments to the rule make clear that the gift cannot be tied to a specific recommendation. A holiday card with a token of appreciation sent to all past clients regardless of whether they recommended you is fine. A gift card sent to a client after they leave a positive review is not — even if the gift card is small, even if you don't tell them in advance, even if you frame it as gratitude rather than payment.
The ABA's position has been articulated in multiple formal opinions and state bar advisory opinions: the timing and the connection to the recommendation are what matter, not the amount or the framing.
Most states adopted Rule 7.2 with minor variations, but a few have explicitly addressed online reviews and incentives:
California maintains some of the strictest rules in the country. The California Bar has issued guidance specifically warning attorneys against incentivized reviews, and California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2 includes provisions parallel to the ABA Model Rule.
New York prohibits payments or anything of value for recommendations under Rule 7.2 and has issued ethics opinions confirming that this includes online reviews and testimonials.
Florida has detailed advertising rules and has historically taken a strict view on testimonial compensation. Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 governs advertising content including testimonials.
Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.03 addresses prohibited solicitation and includes restrictions on compensation for recommendations.
The 2018 ABA amendments loosened Rule 7.3 (in-person solicitation) significantly, but the prohibition on paying for recommendations under Rule 7.2(b) was preserved across the changes — and most states have followed the ABA's lead.
If you practice in any state, the safest assumption is that your jurisdiction prohibits incentivized reviews. The cost of being wrong — bar discipline, public reprimand, potentially worse — is dramatically higher than the cost of using ethical alternatives.
Even if your state's bar rules were silent on the issue, the FTC's endorsement guidelines would still apply. The FTC requires that any "material connection" between an endorser and a business be clearly disclosed. A material connection includes payment, free products, discounts, employment, family relationships — essentially any incentive that could affect the credibility of the endorsement.
For online reviews, this means a client who received a gift card in exchange for a review must disclose that fact in the review itself. Most don't, and most wouldn't even know they were supposed to. That puts the legal liability back on the business that solicited the review without disclosure.
The FTC has been increasingly aggressive about enforcement in this area. In 2024, the agency finalized a rule specifically targeting fake and incentivized reviews, with civil penalties for violations. Law firms aren't exempt.
The practical implication: even if your state bar somehow permitted incentivized reviews, FTC rules would still require disclosure that makes the practice nearly useless from a marketing standpoint. A review that begins "I received a $25 gift card from this firm in exchange for writing this review" is not the kind of review that helps your business.
Layered on top of all of the above are Google's own rules for reviews on Google Business Profile. Google's review policies explicitly prohibit "soliciting reviews from customers in bulk and offering incentives for posting reviews."
Violation consequences include:
For most law firms, the Google Business Profile is the single most valuable marketing asset they own. Losing it — or having it suspended for weeks during an investigation — can be devastating to a practice that depends on local search visibility.
Google's enforcement is automated and inconsistent, but they do enforce. And competitors who notice the practice can report it.
The structure of the prohibitions makes more sense once you understand the underlying concerns.
Independence of the testimonial. Public reviews function as recommendations. If they're paid for, they're not recommendations — they're advertising. The line between paid advertising and unpaid testimonial only holds if compensation is genuinely absent.
Vulnerability of legal clients. Many clients hire attorneys at moments of distress. The lawyer-client relationship involves significant power imbalance. Offering payment for a review introduces pressure that the client may feel even if you don't intend it. The bar rules treat this dynamic as inherently problematic regardless of whether any individual client felt pressured.
Public trust in the legal profession. Bar associations are protective of how the profession is presented to the public. Pay-for-review schemes, even if well-intentioned, undermine that presentation when they're discovered — and they tend to be discovered.
Market integrity. If incentivized reviews were permitted, firms with bigger marketing budgets could simply buy review counts. The current rules level the playing field by requiring that all reviews reflect actual client experience.
You may agree or disagree with these justifications, but they explain why the rules are designed the way they are: to remove the practice entirely rather than to draw narrow lines between acceptable and unacceptable forms of incentive.
The breadth of "anything of value" surprises most attorneys. Some examples that have generated bar complaints or FTC concern:
If something has any value to the recipient, and it's offered in connection with a review, the safe assumption is that it's prohibited.
A common workaround attorneys propose: don't offer compensation for individual reviews, but enter all reviewers into a monthly drawing. Or post a public notice that "anyone who leaves us a review this quarter is entered to win a Yeti cooler."
This doesn't escape the rules. Bar opinions in multiple jurisdictions have addressed sweepstakes-style review incentives and treated them the same as direct compensation. The reasoning: the value to the entrant is real (an expected value, calculable from the prize and the odds), and the connection to the review is explicit. The randomness of the prize doesn't change the underlying compensation analysis.
The same goes for "every 50th reviewer wins" schemes, monthly drawings, and any other mechanism that ties review submission to a chance at value.
Asking a client for a review — without offering anything in exchange — is fully permitted in every jurisdiction. The rules prohibit compensation for recommendations, not the act of requesting feedback.
This is the practical answer to "how do I drive more reviews without breaking the rules": you ask. Systematically. Through every closed matter. Using SMS and email. With a follow-up. With templates that are easy to act on.
Most attorneys don't do this consistently, which is why their review counts stay low. The firms with hundreds of reviews aren't paying for them — they've built systems that ask every client without exception. We covered the mechfanics in our guide on ethically asking clients for Google reviews.
There are legitimate ways to thank clients and build the kind of relationship that drives reviews organically. None of them tie a benefit to a specific review.
Genuine thank-yous to all past clients. A holiday card. A handwritten note after a matter closes. A small gift sent to all clients regardless of whether they reviewed you. The key is that it's universal, not tied to review behavior.
Excellent service. Clients who feel genuinely well-served leave reviews. Clients who feel ignored or rushed don't. Most of the gap between firms with 200 reviews and firms with 12 isn't about review-asking strategy — it's about the underlying client experience.
Educational resources. Free guides, downloadable checklists, helpful follow-up content. These build goodwill and keep your firm top-of-mind, but they're available to all clients, not contingent on review behavior.
Community involvement. Sponsoring local events, supporting causes your clients care about, participating in bar association activities. None of this is review-related, but it builds the kind of community presence that generates organic reviews and word-of-mouth.
A consistent, easy review request process. Honestly, this is the highest-leverage thing you can do. Most firms don't ask. Asking — every client, automatically, with a follow-up — typically increases review volume by 5-10x without any incentive at all.
"Can I send a coffee gift card with a thank-you note that mentions reviewing us?"No. The proximity of the gift card to the review request creates the prohibited connection.
"Can I send a holiday gift to all clients and also have a separate review request system?"Yes — as long as the gift goes to all clients (or a class defined without reference to reviews) and the review request is independent. Don't mention the gift in the review request, and don't mention the review request when sending the gift.
"What if a client offers to leave a review in exchange for something?"Politely decline the trade. Thank them, offer the something separately if you wish (or not), and ask for the review independently if at all.
"Can I offer a charitable donation in exchange for a review?"No. The donation has value to the client (they get the satisfaction of directing the donation), and the connection to the review is the prohibited element. Some states have addressed this directly.
"Can I run a 'review of the month' contest where reviewers get featured on our website?"Featuring is itself a form of value, and contests tied to reviews fall into the same category as drawings. Avoid.
"Can I pay a marketing agency that includes review generation in their services?"Yes, you can pay for advertising and marketing services. But the agency cannot use the money to incentivize individual reviewers — that would just push the prohibited conduct one layer down. Make sure your agency's review-generation methods are based on requests, not incentives. And under FTC rules, you're responsible for what your agency does on your behalf.
"Can I respond to a positive review by sending a thank-you gift?"This is gray territory but risky. The timing — a gift sent after a review — creates the appearance of compensation even if not intended that way. Safer to thank reviewers in writing only, and separately maintain general thank-you programs that don't reference reviews.
The path forward for law firms isn't to find the cleverest way to incentivize reviews — it's to build a system that systematically asks for them.
A compliant, effective review system has three elements:
The math works out the way you'd expect. A solo attorney closing 10 matters a month and asking every client typically generates 4-8 reviews monthly without any incentive. Multiply that across years and you have a reputation moat that no incentive program could have built.
TrueReview handles all of this — automated requests triggered by status changes in your practice management software, SMS and email delivery, follow-up sequences, and built-in compliance with FTC and Google policies. The platform integrates with MyCase, Clio, PracticePanther, and most other legal practice management tools.
The rules on review incentives for attorneys are stricter than most realize, broader than most expect, and not subject to the workarounds most attorneys try first. Gift cards, drawings, charitable donations, discounts, free products — all of it falls under the same prohibition.
If you take three things from this post:
For more on building that asking process the right way, see our guide on ethically asking clients for Google reviews and our pillar piece on online reviews for law firms.
Want a fully compliant review system that runs without you thinking about it? Start a free 14-day trial of TrueReview — automated requests through your practice management software, FTC-compliant workflows, and integrations with the legal tools you already use.
This article provides general information about attorney advertising and review solicitation rules. It is not legal advice. Bar rules vary by state and are updated periodically — consult your state bar's current rules and recent ethics opinions before implementing any review program.
