What Rule 36 means for the words published under your name

A solicitor’s name goes on the practising certificate. Rule 36 puts it on the advertising too, including copy a marketing agency wrote. This post looks at what that means for anything published under a Queensland law firm’s name.

Most firms hand marketing to someone else and stop reading the copy closely. Rule 36 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules keeps the responsibility with the solicitor regardless. Advertising connected to the practice sits with the solicitor whose name is on it, whoever drafted the sentence.

That single fact changes what “outsourcing marketing” should mean for a Queensland law firm.

What Rule 36 actually covers

The rule reaches beyond formal ads. Website copy, Google Ads text, a “meet the team” bio, and a social post promoting a case outcome are all advertising connected to the practice once published under the firm’s name.¹

Two consumer law provisions sit alongside it. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct. Section 29 prohibits false representations about qualifications, price, and testimonials.² A superlative like “best,” “leading,” or “number one” needs current, objective evidence behind it, evidence a marketing agency rarely holds and rarely checks for.

This is a standard feature of a regulated profession. The part firms consistently miss is that the responsibility stays with the practice even when someone else drafted the words.

The same logic extends to AI-generated content. A blog post, bio, or ad line drafted by an AI tool and published under the firm’s name carries the same Rule 36 responsibility as anything a person wrote. The drafting method doesn’t change whose name is on it.

Where the gap actually opens

Unapproved claims tend to enter through routine steps in a marketing workflow, not through anyone deciding to take a risk.

A junior copywriter drafts a bio and calls a solicitor a “specialist” before any formal accreditation exists, because the word reads well and nobody checks it against the accreditation register. A case study gets published without written client consent, because the win felt shareable and the consent step never made it onto anyone’s checklist.

An automated ad platform can compound the problem on its own. Some ad tools generate headline variants from account signals such as review volume, inserting language like “top-rated” without a person approving the specific words. A firm running Google Ads for law firms without reviewing generated variants has effectively delegated a Rule 36 decision to software.

Each of these starts as an ordinary marketing decision made by someone not measuring it against Rule 36 at all.

What a breach actually risks

A breach of Rule 36 isn’t a marketing footnote. It’s capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, and it can give rise to a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner.³ That exposure sits with the solicitor and the principal of the practice together, not with whoever wrote the copy.

The claim doesn’t need to be outright false to trigger it. A headline can create a misleading overall impression even when the supporting detail is accurate, which is why review has to happen at the level of what a reader takes away, not just at the level of individual facts. This is also why marketing sign-off works best as a principal-level responsibility. The professional consequence lands on the practice, so the final approval should too.

What this means for an agency relationship

A firm doesn’t need to review every headline before it goes live. What it needs is an agency that treats compliance as a drafting constraint, built into the copy from the first draft.

In practice that means claims of specialisation held back until accreditation is confirmed, testimonials published only with documented consent, and superlative language avoided from the outset. Ad copy should be something a solicitor can read once and approve, not something that needs interpreting first.

Reviewing every piece of copy line by line puts the firm back to doing the work it outsourced in the first place. Building compliance into the drafting process is what keeps that work outsourced.

Rule 36 doesn’t change because the copy was written by someone else. The brief given to any agency should say plainly what can’t be claimed, alongside what should be promoted.

If your current marketing was written before anyone checked it against these rules, request a copy review. Most of what needs to change is small. This is the discipline behind how Jane Cluff drafts and reviews everything published for a client.

Frequently asked

Does Rule 36 apply to a marketing agency, or only to the solicitor?

Rule 36 attributes responsibility to the solicitor connected to the practice. The agency that drafted the copy sits outside the ASCR. The solicitor whose name and practice the advertising promotes carries the outcome regardless of who wrote it.

Can lawyers advertise their legal services in Australia?

Yes. Advertising itself isn’t restricted. What’s restricted is content that’s false, misleading or deceptive, offensive, or prohibited by law, under Rule 36, alongside the Australian Consumer Law’s prohibitions on misleading conduct and false representations. The advertising is permitted. The claims inside it are what get regulated.

Can a firm call a solicitor a “specialist” in marketing copy?

Only where formal accreditation actually exists. Without it, the term is a false representation under section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law and a Rule 36 issue at the same time, two separate exposures from one word.

What counts as “advertising connected to the practice” under Rule 36?

More than most firms assume. Website copy, paid ad text, social posts, and bios all qualify once published under the firm’s name.

What happens if a firm breaches Rule 36?

A breach can constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, and it can lead to a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner. The claim doesn’t need to be outright false. An overall misleading impression is enough, even where the underlying detail is accurate.

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It describes Felicity Jane Digital’s own drafting practice in relation to Rule 36 and does not advise any reader on their obligations under it. Firms should confirm their specific compliance position with their own legal adviser. Current as at 22 September 2026.