What does Rule 36 of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules require of a law firm's advertising?
Rule 36 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 binds the principal solicitor to ensure no advertising, marketing or promotion in connection with the solicitor or law practice is false, misleading, deceptive, offensive or otherwise prohibited by law, and prohibits any false impression of specialist expertise. A breach is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, prosecuted by the Council of the Law Society or the Bar Council and determined in NSW by the Occupational Division of NCAT. The cost lands on the principal's practising certificate, not on the agency that wrote the copy.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 — Rule 36.
A solicitor or principal of a law practice must ensure that any advertising, marketing or promotion in connection with the solicitor or law practice is not — 36.1.1 false; 36.1.2 misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive; 36.1.3 offensive; or 36.1.4 prohibited by law. A solicitor must not convey a false, misleading or deceptive impression of specialist expertise …
Source: Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 — Rule 36 (NSW Legislation)
The substance, in plain English.
Rule 36 binds the principal solicitor and any other solicitor who advertises, marketing they did not draft included. The principal cannot delegate the obligation by handing the brief to a generalist agency. Every paid ad, suburb landing page, social post, Google Business Profile description, podcast trailer, sponsored editorial and email campaign sits inside the rule. The same rule then sits next to s.299 and s.302 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, which let the Tribunal impose a fine up to $100,000 for professional misconduct, conditions on a practising certificate, suspension, or removal from the roll.
The four limbs of 36.1 are read together. False (36.1.1) is the cleanest line: a claim of being "the number one personal injury firm in NSW" or having recovered figures the file does not support. Misleading or deceptive (36.1.2) is broader — wording that is technically true but creates a false impression overall, including outcome promises ("we will get you the compensation you deserve"), comparative claims, and "specialist in" framing on a practitioner with no accreditation. Offensive (36.1.3) and prohibited by law (36.1.4) catch material that breaches the Australian Consumer Law, the Privacy Act or jurisdiction-specific personal-injury advertising restrictions.
Rule 36.2 specifically targets specialist expertise. The words "accredited specialist" or any post-nominal derivative are reserved for solicitors accredited by the Law Society's Specialist Accreditation scheme. "Specialist in", "expert in" or "leading" used loosely on a practice area page is the most common Rule 36 breach the regulators publish on. Practising areas of law a firm runs in volume can be described factually ("our family law practice acted in 140 contested parenting matters in 2024") — what cannot be claimed is a designation the practitioner has not earned.
Personal-injury and class-action advertising operates inside the rule plus state-specific restrictions on touting. NSW (Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, sch 1), Queensland (Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s.66) and Victoria (Wrongs Act 1958) impose additional limits on the form, content and channels of personal-injury advertising. "No win no fee" arrangements must be described accurately and the costs and disbursement liabilities disclosed under s.174 of the Uniform Law where the threshold is reached. Hiding the disbursement exposure inside the brand line is an outcome guarantee dressed up.
Compliance posture is operational, not retrospective. Rule 37 makes the principal personally responsible for supervision of every solicitor in the practice and, by extension, for what those solicitors authorise to be published. The expectation, carried into the disciplinary record, is a documented sign-off chain: practice area copy reviewed by the principal or a named partner, paid creative reviewed before launch, dated, version-controlled. Where that chain does not exist, the Tribunal treats the principal's claim of inadvertence as evidence of failure to supervise, not mitigation.
Maximum penalty: Up to $100,000 per offence (designated tribunal — professional misconduct under s.302, Legal Profession Uniform Law). Up to $25,000 per offence (local regulatory authority — unsatisfactory professional conduct under s.299). Available orders include reprimand, conditions on the practising certificate, suspension, and recommendation that the practitioner's name be removed from the roll. Findings remain on the public Register of Disciplinary Action indefinitely..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2025
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Buckley [2025] NSWCATOD 98
On 29 July 2025 the Occupational Division of NCAT found a Sydney solicitor and partner of G & B Lawyers guilty of professional misconduct on multiple grounds including marketing material in connection with the solicitor and the law practice that was false, misleading or deceptive contrary to rules 36.1.1 and 36.1.2 of the Conduct Rules — through GoFundMe-style fundraising posts. The Tribunal recommended his name be removed from the roll and ordered costs.
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Buckley [2025] NSWCATOD 98 — BarNet Jade
- 2024
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Sideris (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 121
Removal from the roll was again recommended in a separate matter — different limbs of the Conduct Rules, same architecture: principal solicitor, marketing-and-conduct findings, removal recommendation, costs. The Law Society Journal pairs Buckley and Sideris in its Recent NCAT Decisions index as the live shape of the regulator's enforcement posture.
- 2024
OLSC Annual Report 2023–2024
The Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner Annual Report records the volume of complaints assessed, the proportion referred to the Law Society for investigation, and the number of disciplinary matters referred to NCAT — including marketing-and-advertising matters under Rule 36. The Register of Disciplinary Action is published under s.477 of the Uniform Law and is searchable indefinitely.
A worked example.
A NSW personal-injury firm runs a Google Ad headline reading "Sydney's leading workers' compensation specialists — no win, no fee guaranteed". The landing page sets a 48-hour countdown to a free consult, framed as "limited spaces this week". The headline trips Rule 36.2 ("specialists" without accreditation), Rule 36.1.2 ("leading" as a comparative claim with no substantiation), and Rule 36.1.1 ("guaranteed" treats no-win-no-fee as an outcome guarantee, glossing the disbursement exposure under s.174 of the Uniform Law). The countdown layers s.18 of the Australian Consumer Law on top. A complaint to the Law Society triggers a Rule 36 investigation against the principal, not against the agency. Fix: rewrite the headline around a specific scheme (workers compensation, motor accidents) with a credentialed practitioner named, drop "specialists" / "leading" / "guaranteed", remove the countdown, and surface the costs disclosure obligation in the consult flow.
The questions that come next.
Can I describe a practitioner as a "specialist in family law" if they have ten years of experience but no Law Society Specialist Accreditation?
No. Rule 36.2 reserves "specialist" and its derivatives for practitioners accredited under the Specialist Accreditation scheme of the Law Society in the relevant state. Years of experience is a credential, not a specialist designation. The compliant alternative is descriptive — practice area, named matters argued, courts appeared in, scheme expertise — not the regulated word.
Is "no win, no fee" advertising allowed at all under Rule 36?
Yes, when described accurately and accompanied by the costs disclosure required under s.174 of the Uniform Law for matters likely to exceed the $750 threshold. What is not allowed is presenting it as an outcome guarantee, hiding the disbursement liability, or running it next to comparative or sensational language that crosses Rule 36.1.2. State-specific personal-injury rules (in NSW, Queensland, Victoria) tighten the channels and content further.
If the agency wrote and pushed live the non-compliant copy, does that shift liability away from the principal?
No. Rule 36 binds the principal solicitor; Rule 37 makes the principal responsible for supervision. The Tribunal does not accept "the agency did it" as mitigation — and treats the absence of a documented sign-off chain as evidence of failure to supervise. The agency carries reputational risk; the principal carries the practising certificate.
Are testimonials from former clients prohibited the way they are for medical practitioners under AHPRA s.133?
Not categorically. Rule 36 does not contain a categorical prohibition equivalent to s.133(1)(c). What it does prohibit is testimonials that create a false or misleading impression — outcome figures the matter does not support, comparative endorsements ("the best lawyer in Sydney"), or testimonials presented in a way that implies a guarantee of a similar result. Substantiation, anonymisation where appropriate, and a clear statement that outcomes vary are the operating constraints.
Does Rule 36 reach across to my LinkedIn profile and personal social posts?
Yes, where the post is in connection with the solicitor or the law practice — which the Law Society Journal's published guidance reads broadly. A LinkedIn headline reading "Specialist immigration lawyer" without accreditation, a Twitter bio implying outcome guarantees, or a sponsored Instagram reel describing "Sydney's number one" practice all sit inside Rule 36. Personal opinion on unrelated political topics is outside; identification as a solicitor or partner of the firm pulls the post back inside.
Read it for yourself.
- Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 — Rule 36 (NSW Legislation, current)
- Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) — full text (austlii consolidation)
- Solicitor and law practice marketing — how do I meet my regulatory obligations? (Law Society Journal)
- Advertising Legal Services — Law Society of NSW regulatory compliance guidance
- NSW Register of Disciplinary Action (OLSC)
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.