- Part VII, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
- Rules 7.01 through 7.06 govern every communication a Texas lawyer makes about their services — websites, ads, brochures, social posts, direct outreach. The current version took effect July 1, 2021 and is the first thing to check before publishing anything.
- Advertising Review Committee filing
- Non-exempt Texas advertisements and written solicitations must be filed with the State Bar's Advertising Review Department, with a $100 application fee per submission and fines assessed for failure to file. Voluntary pre-approval may be sought not fewer than 30 days before first dissemination, and a finding of compliance is then binding in the lawyer's favor in a later disciplinary proceeding provided the disseminated ad matches what was submitted — which turns marketing risk into a documented defense.
- Prohibition on guaranteeing results
- A lawyer may not state or imply that a particular result can be obtained. Past results may be reported truthfully, but framing that turns a result into an expectation — 'we win' — crosses the line.
- Superiority and comparison limits
- Claims that a lawyer's services are of superior quality are restricted unless they are objectively verifiable and substantiated. Unverifiable superlatives — 'best,' 'top,' 'leading' — are the most common Texas advertising violation.
- Board certification and the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
- A Texas lawyer may only be held out as a specialist or as certified if certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization or an accredited organization, which certifies in defined areas after experience requirements, peer review and an examination. Saying 'specializing in' without certification is a rule violation, not a stylistic choice — and certification is one of very few objectively verifiable quality claims a Texas firm may advertise.
- Solicitation rules
- Rule 7.03 restricts live, in-person, telephone and real-time electronic contact with prospective clients not already known to the lawyer, with heightened restrictions after accidents and disasters. Automated outbound sequences can violate this even when a website would not.
- Referral fee and fee division rules
- Division of fees between lawyers in different firms must be proportional to services performed or by joint responsibility, disclosed in writing to the client, and consented to by the client in writing. Undisclosed referral fees are among the most reliably sanctioned violations.
- Unauthorized practice of law
- Giving legal advice or preparing legal documents for another without a license. It sets the boundary for legal-adjacent products, document services and AI tools, and defines what a non-lawyer marketing partner may say on a firm's behalf.
- Fee-sharing with non-lawyers
- Rule 5.04 bars sharing legal fees with non-lawyers and bars non-lawyer ownership of a law practice in Texas. It is why pay-per-lead marketing is permitted but revenue-share marketing is not, and why the Arizona ownership experiment stops at the state line.
- Conflicts of interest
- Duties of loyalty and confidentiality that prevent representing a client whose interests are adverse to a current or former client without informed consent. Conflicts kill more prospective engagements at large firms than price does.
- Conflicts check
- The database search run against parties, adverse parties and related entities before an engagement is accepted. Turnaround time on conflicts is a real competitive variable — a boutique clearing in an hour beats a global firm clearing in a week.
- Engagement letter
- The written agreement defining scope, fee structure, who the client is and is not, expenses, and termination. Scope creep beyond the engagement letter is the origin of most fee disputes and a large share of malpractice claims.
- Engagement versus matter intake
- Engagement is the client relationship; intake is the operational funnel that qualifies a prospect, runs conflicts, sets expectations and produces the engagement letter. Marketing generates inquiries; intake converts them, and it is where most firms lose the deal.
- IOLTA trust accounting
- Client funds and unearned fees must sit in a separate Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts account, never commingled with firm operating money, with interest funding legal aid. Trust-account error is one of the fastest routes to suspension.
- Contingency fee
- The lawyer is paid a percentage of the recovery and nothing if there is none, with expenses handled separately. It dominates plaintiff-side personal injury and drives the highest legal advertising spend of any segment.
- Hourly, flat and subscription fees
- Three pricing models with three different economics. Hourly transfers inefficiency risk to the client, flat fees transfer it to the firm and reward process maturity, and subscription or fractional-GC retainers convert episodic work into recurring revenue.
- Retainer versus evergreen retainer
- A classic retainer is an advance deposit drawn down as work is billed; an evergreen retainer requires the client to top the balance back up to a floor each cycle. Evergreen terms materially improve collections and are worth stating plainly up front.
- Billable hour
- The base unit of law firm revenue — time recorded, usually in tenths, against a matter. It remains the default despite decades of predicted death because it is the only unit that clients, firms and compensation systems all agree how to count.
- Matter
- The discrete engagement a firm opens, numbers, bills and reports against. Matter is the atomic unit of law firm data; everything from conflicts to profitability to marketing attribution is measured per matter.
- Work in progress (WIP)
- Time and expense recorded but not yet billed. Large WIP balances are the classic sign of a firm that works hard and bills late, and WIP aging is the first place to look when cash is tight.
- Realization rate
- The share of recorded time that is actually billed and then collected. A firm with a high headline rate and a 78% realization is really charging its low-realization rate, and improving realization beats raising rates.
- Utilization
- Billable hours worked against a target. Read with realization it separates a firm that is busy from a firm that is profitable — high utilization with low realization means the work is being done and then written off.
- Alternative fee arrangement (AFA)
- Any structure other than pure hourly — fixed fee, capped fee, phased fee, collar, success fee, portfolio pricing. AFAs demand real scoping and matter-level cost data, which is why firms that adopt them well tend to be firms that measured first.
- Origination credit
- Internal credit for bringing in a client or matter, and the main driver of partner compensation and behavior. Origination rules explain more about how a firm markets — and why partners hoard relationships — than any strategy document.
- Book of business
- The portable client revenue a partner controls. It is the currency of the lateral market, the basis of most partner comp, and the reason firm-level marketing and partner-level marketing are often in quiet tension.
- Of counsel
- A lawyer with an ongoing, close relationship to the firm who is neither partner nor associate — often a senior practitioner post-partnership, a specialist, or a lateral in transition. The title must not be used to imply a relationship that does not exist.
- Non-equity partner
- A partner in title and client-facing standing who does not hold equity and is typically salaried plus bonus. Two-tier partnerships now dominate large-firm structure and materially change leverage and profitability math.
- Leverage ratio
- Associates and other timekeepers per equity partner. High leverage raises profit per equity partner when there is enough work to feed it and destroys it when there is not; leverage is the main structural difference between a boutique and an Am Law firm.
- Profit per equity partner (PPEP)
- Firm profit divided by equity partners, the headline metric of law firm league tables. It is a function of rate, realization, utilization, leverage and expense — which is why it can be engineered by shrinking the equity tier.
- Revenue per lawyer (RPL)
- Total revenue divided by all lawyers. Less gameable than PPEP because it does not respond to partnership-tier reclassification, which makes it the better comparison across firms of different structures.
- Lateral hire
- Moving an experienced lawyer, usually a partner with portable business, from one firm to another. Laterals are how firms enter markets like Austin quickly, and integration failure — the book that does not follow — is the standard risk.
- Docketing
- The calendaring discipline that tracks every court deadline, filing date and limitations period on every matter, with redundancy. Docketing failure is the single most common malpractice claim, which is why it is systematized rather than left to individuals.
- Statute of limitations
- The deadline to file suit, varying by claim type and jurisdiction — in Texas commonly two years for personal injury and four for breach of contract, with tolling and discovery-rule exceptions. Missing it extinguishes an otherwise valid claim and is the deadline consumer-facing content should always surface.
- Discovery
- The pretrial exchange of information — requests for production, interrogatories, requests for admission, depositions. It consumes the majority of litigation budget in most cases and is where cost predictions go wrong.
- E-discovery
- Discovery of electronically stored information: preservation and legal hold, collection, processing, review, production. Governed by proportionality and defensibility, and the practice area most changed by machine learning.
- Privilege review
- Screening documents for attorney-client privilege and work product before production, then logging what is withheld. Traditionally the costliest line in review and the first target for technology-assisted workflows.
- Deposition
- Sworn out-of-court testimony taken under questioning by opposing counsel and transcribed. Depositions set up summary judgment and impeachment at trial and are the moment most clients first feel the case is real.
- Motion practice
- The written applications that shape a case before trial — motions to dismiss, to compel, in limine, for summary judgment. Most civil cases are decided by motion or settlement rather than by verdict.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling that no genuine dispute of material fact exists and one party wins as a matter of law. It is the principal off-ramp from litigation and the reason discovery is fought so hard.
- Mediation versus arbitration
- Mediation is a facilitated, non-binding negotiation the parties can walk away from; arbitration is a private adjudication with a binding award and very narrow appeal. Confusing the two in client-facing content is a common and damaging error.
- Multidistrict litigation (MDL)
- Federal consolidation of similar cases before one judge for pretrial proceedings, with cases returning to their home courts for trial. MDL drives mass-tort advertising and the referral economics behind it.
- Class action
- One or more named plaintiffs suing on behalf of a certified class of similarly situated people. Certification, not the merits, is usually the decisive fight, and class notice programs are a marketing discipline of their own.
- Legal process outsourcing (LPO)
- Delegating routine legal work — document review, contract abstraction, due diligence — to lower-cost providers onshore or offshore. LPO was the first structural crack in the billable hour and the ancestor of today's ALSPs.
- Alternative legal service provider (ALSP)
- A non-firm supplier of legal work: managed review, contract lifecycle management, flexible lawyering, compliance operations. ALSPs now include firm-owned subsidiaries, Big Four legal arms and standalone companies, and they compete for the work firms least want to lose.
- Legal operations
- The business function inside a legal department that manages spend, vendors, technology, workflow and metrics. Legal ops professionalized outside-counsel buying, and it is the audience that reads a firm's rate, staffing and AI-usage disclosures most carefully.
- Attorney review sites
- Google Business Profile, Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Yelp and practice-specific directories where reviews accumulate. Responding to a negative review is an ethics minefield because confidentiality still binds the lawyer even when the client has spoken publicly.
- Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell ratings
- Avvo scores lawyers algorithmically from licensing, experience and activity; Martindale-Hubbell's AV Preeminent peer-review rating dates to the nineteenth century. Both may be cited if stated accurately with the rating body named — an unattributed 'top rated' is a superiority claim.
- Google Local Services Ads (LSAs)
- Pay-per-lead ads above search results carrying a Google Screened badge that requires license and background verification. They convert well for consumer legal work, and the bar-rule question is that paying per lead is permissible while paying for a recommendation or sharing fees with the platform is not.