New California Laws 2026
SB 37: California’s new attorney advertising and solicitation rules explained
By Shant A. Karnikian S B 37, signed as Chapter 645, Statutes of 2025, represents California’s most comprehensive reform of attorney advertising regulations in re- cent history. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, the law enhances existing prohibitions on misleading advertisements while introducing a powerful new enforcement tool: private rights of action that allow consumers and competitors to bring civil lawsuits for violations. The legislation targets three primary areas. First, it prohibits advertisements containing misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding a lawyer’s skills, experience or record, and restricts award ref- erences unless merit-based and free of charge. This directly addresses the proliferation of pay-to-play “Top Attorney” badges and questionable recognition seals that have saturated legal advertising, particu- larly in online search results and social media plat- forms where consumers struggle to distinguish legit- imate credentials from purchased honors. Second, advertisements must conspicuously dis- play at least one bona fide office location or State Bar address, preventing attorneys from falsely appearing to maintain local offices across multiple jurisdictions when they actually operate remotely from a single distant location. Third, lawyers may no longer market using past case results unless those results are objectively ver- ifiable and not misleading through omission—clos- ing the loophole where attorneys could highlight extraordinary multi-million-dollar verdicts without disclosing that most similar cases settle for substan- tially less or that verdicts were later reduced on ap- peal. Violations of these new rules are subject to a pri- vate right of action with statutory damages ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 per violation. This rep- resents a significant enforcement shift, supplement- ing State Bar oversight by empowering consumers and competitors to police false advertising through civil litigation. The law also establishes a State Bar complaint process, allowing advertisers to withdraw problematic content before facing litigation—a grad- uated enforcement approach designed to balance consumer protection with fairness to attorneys who may have inadvertently violated the new require- ments.
Proponents emphasize consumer protection as the law’s primary justification. Federal Trade Commis- sion research demonstrates that consumers struggle to assess legal advertising credibility, particularly re- garding the significance of awards and recognition. The private enforcement mechanism becomes crit- ical given current State Bar budgetary constraints that have limited regulatory oversight. Advocates argue the law levels the playing field for ethical prac- titioners who compete against firms using deceptive marketing tactics to gain unfair competitive advan- tages. It would be wise for practitioners to immediately audit all communications or publications that can be construed as advertising materials—websites, social media profiles, directory listings and third-party ad- vertisements—and consider removing questionable award badges, verify all factual claims are objectively supportable and ensure location information is prom- inently displayed. Early enforcement actions will es- tablish critical precedent about the law’s scope and damages calculations. The stakes are substantial: Non-compliance could result in six-figure statutory damages plus attorneys’ fees, creating significant fi- nancial and reputational risks.
Shant A. Karnikian is managing partner at Kabateck LLP.
6
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting