First, what the CPRA is
The CPRA is the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, the rulebook governing how lawyers in the Philippines must conduct themselves. The Supreme Court approved it on 11 April 2023 under A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, replacing the Code of Professional Responsibility that had been in force since 1988.
It is organised around six canons, of which the one that matters for marketing is Canon II on propriety. Breaching it is a disciplinary matter handled through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and ultimately the Supreme Court, with penalties running from reprimand to suspension to disbarment. It binds the lawyer personally, not the marketing agency, which is the single most important thing for a marketing team to understand.
The CPRA is also considerably more explicit about digital practice than the code it replaced, because that is where most of the difficult questions now arise.
Two cases worth knowing first
Before the rules, the precedents. These two decisions show how the Court has actually treated advertising rather than how the text reads in the abstract.
- Khan v. Simbillo (A.C. No. 5299, 19 August 2003). A lawyer ran newspaper advertisements describing himself as an annulment of marriage specialist. Callers were told a decree could be guaranteed within four to six months for a fixed fee. Suspended from practice for one year. The Court held that the practice of law is a profession rather than a business.
- Linsangan v. Tolentino (A.C. No. 6672, 4 September 2009). Clients were approached through a paralegal and offered financial assistance to switch firms, with a calling card advertising as much. Suspended for one year. The Court treated solicitation through an agent as malpractice and described the conduct as ambulance chasing.
Both were decided under the old Code of Professional Responsibility, which the CPRA replaced in April 2023. The principles carried over. What Simbillo tells you is that claiming to be a specialist and implying a guaranteed outcome are both live risks. What Linsangan tells you is that the rules follow the conduct even when someone else does the soliciting, which matters if you are considering a lead generation service.
What the CPRA actually permits
Canon II states that a lawyer may not solicit legal business directly or indirectly, and may not advertise legal services on any platform except using information that is dignified, verifiable and factual. It gives examples of what falls inside: biographical data, contact details, fields of practice, services offered. The stated purpose is to let a potential client make an informed choice.
Then the clause that does the real work. Permissible advertising must in no case be self-laudatory. Leading, premier, top-rated, most trusted and every similar adjective falls outside, whether or not the claim is accurate.
There is a second provision that catches firms who thought they were being conservative. A lawyer or firm may not pay or give any benefit to media practitioners, award-giving bodies, professional organisations or personalities in anticipation of or in return for publicity or recognition intended to attract legal work. Paid awards and sponsored ranking profiles sit squarely in its path.
Words and phrases to avoid
This is the list most marketing teams want and rarely get. The left column is what ordinary copywriting reaches for. The right column is the version that says something without breaching the rule.
| Avoid | Why | Say instead |
|---|---|---|
| Specialist, expert in | The exact wording penalised in Khan v. Simbillo | Our practice includes annulment and family law |
| Leading, premier, top-rated, No. 1, best | Self-laudatory under the CPRA | In practice in Makati since 2011 |
| Guaranteed, we will win, 100% success rate | Implied outcome, central to Simbillo | We will advise you on the likely options and timeline |
| Award-winning, as recognised by | Risky where the award was paid for | Omit, or name only honours that involved no payment |
| Trusted by thousands of Filipinos | Self-laudatory and unverifiable | We have handled labour cases since 2015 |
| Cheapest, most affordable legal services | Commercialism, sits badly with dignity | Fees are discussed at the initial consultation |
| Free consultation, slots limited, act now | Solicitation and manufactured urgency | Consultations may be arranged by appointment |
| Aggressive, ruthless, we fight for you | Undignified register | We represent clients in litigation and arbitration |
| Fast annulment, quick decree | Implies a timeline the court controls | Typical timelines depend on the court and the case |
The pattern behind every row: replace a judgement about quality with a checkable fact.
Images
Photography gets less attention than copy and carries some of the same risk.
Fine. Photographs of your lawyers, your office and your team. Neutral illustrative imagery. Headshots and professional portraits.
Careful. Anything showing a client, a case file, a document or a courtroom scene involving real matters. Confidentiality applies to the image as much as to the text, and is not always cured by consent. Staged photographs implying a courtroom victory carry the same implied-outcome problem as the words would.
Avoid. The Supreme Court seal, court seals, or any government insignia in marketing material. Using an official emblem in promotional context suggests an endorsement or affiliation that does not exist, and it is the kind of thing that attracts attention quickly.
Logos, badges and credits
The awards and badges layer is where careful firms still get caught, because in most countries this is routine marketing.
Generally fine. Stating that lawyers are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which is a fact of admission rather than a distinction. Naming the university a lawyer attended, and the year of admission to the bar. Listing genuine professional memberships.
Read the rule first. Any award, ranking, badge or feature that involved payment. The CPRA addresses paying or giving benefit to media practitioners, award-giving bodies, professional organisations or personalities in anticipation of or in return for publicity or recognition intended to attract legal work. Directory badges sold as part of a listing package fall inside that description more often than firms assume.
Avoid. As-seen-on media logos where the placement was paid, institutional logos used without permission, and anything that implies official endorsement of the firm by a regulator or a court.
Channel by channel
1. Firm website
The safest channel and the most underused. Practice areas stated specifically, lawyer biographies, admissions, education, languages, office locations and how a consultation works are all verifiable facts of exactly the kind the CPRA contemplates. What has to go is the adjective layer: the leading firm, the trusted name, the premier practice.
2. Blog and legal commentary
Writing about the law is information rather than promotion, and it is the strongest option available. An explanation of how a process works, what a recent decision means, or what a party should expect is not an advertisement for the firm even though it plainly benefits the firm. It also matches how clients search, since almost nobody looks for a law firm before they look for their problem.
3. Google Business Profile and directories
Name, address, contact details, practice areas and hours are factual and appropriate. Keeping the profile accurate is one of the highest-return things a firm can do for local search and involves no promotional language at all. Free directory listings carrying the same factual information are in the same position.
4. Paid awards and sponsored rankings
Different from the above and worth separate thought. Where a listing, badge or award involves payment and exists to attract work, the provision on paying for recognition applies. This is routine practice in other jurisdictions, which is exactly why firms assume it is fine here.
5. Firm social media
Permitted, and subject to the same standard as everything else. The difficulty is register: social media rewards the punchy, confident line, and the punchy confident line about a law firm is usually self-laudatory. The CPRA also contains specific provisions on online posts and on using social platforms to communicate with court officers, which are worth reading directly.
6. Lawyers' personal accounts
The provisions do not stop at the firm page. A partner posting about a win on a personal account is still a lawyer making a public statement, and confidentiality obligations apply regardless of the platform. Firms building a content programme should agree a position on personal accounts at the start rather than after an incident.
7. Paid advertising
Not prohibited outright, but Simbillo is a newspaper advertising case and the reasoning transfers to search and social ads without much difficulty. Ad formats reward exactly what the rules restrict: superlatives, urgency, outcome claims and short punchy promises. If you advertise, keep the copy factual and resist every instinct the platform encourages.
8. Referrals and lead generation
The area where Linsangan bites. Arrangements that involve paying an intermediary for client introductions need careful examination, and the fact that a third party does the soliciting does not put the conduct outside the rules. Lead generation platforms that charge per enquiry deserve a close read before signing.
9. Testimonials and case results
Both need care. Confidentiality applies independently of advertising rules and is not always cured by consent. Outcome claims sit uncomfortably with the self-laudatory prohibition, and Simbillo shows how the Court views implied guarantees. This is one for your ethics committee rather than your agency.
10. Email and newsletters
A legal update sent to existing clients and subscribers is information and is generally comfortable. Unsolicited email to purchased lists is a different thing entirely and looks like solicitation, on top of the Data Privacy Act issues it raises.
11. Video, podcasts and webinars
Explaining the law in any format is still explaining the law. These carry a particular risk that an off-the-cuff answer becomes specific advice to an identifiable situation, so a clear framing at the start is worth the ten seconds it costs.
12. Speaking and seminars
Long-established and comfortable, provided the content is educational rather than promotional. Historically one of the more accepted routes to visibility for Philippine firms and still among the most effective.
Quick reference
| Channel or tactic | Position | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Practice areas named specifically | Fine | Verifiable, helps a client choose |
| Lawyer bios, admissions, education | Fine | Expressly contemplated as biographical data |
| Articles explaining the law | Fine | Information, not promotion |
| Google Business Profile | Fine | Factual contact and service information |
| Newsletters to existing subscribers | Fine | Information to people who asked for it |
| Seminars and speaking | Fine | Educational, long accepted |
| Firm and personal social media | Care | Register drifts self-laudatory; CPRA has online provisions |
| Paid search and social ads | Care | Permitted, but ad formats reward what the rules restrict |
| Case results and testimonials | Care | Confidentiality, plus implied outcome claims |
| Calling yourself a specialist | No | The exact wording penalised in Khan v. Simbillo |
| Any guaranteed or implied outcome | No | Also central to Simbillo |
| "Leading" or "premier" firm | No | Self-laudatory under the CPRA |
| Paid awards and sponsored rankings | No | Payment for recognition to attract work |
| Paying intermediaries for referrals | No | Solicitation through an agent, per Linsangan |
| Unsolicited email to bought lists | No | Solicitation, plus Data Privacy Act exposure |
Simplified for orientation. Exact wording changes the answer more often than the channel does.
The space nobody is using
Clients search whether they can contest a will, how long annulment takes, what happens when an employer withholds final pay, whether a clause is enforceable. Answering those questions is permitted, useful, and almost entirely absent from Philippine firm websites, because the knowledge lives in consultations instead.
Firms worry that giving the answer away removes the reason to hire them. In practice a clear explanation of a difficult process convinces people they need help rather than that they can manage alone. It also demonstrates competence before anyone has paid, which no credentials page achieves.
If your clients ask in Tagalog, write in Tagalog. There is nothing undignified about being understood, and the competition for Tagalog legal explainers is close to nonexistent.
On how long any of this takes to work, see what actually happens in the first 90 days. On being cited when someone asks an assistant instead of searching, see our guide to GEO and AEO.
Before you hire an agency
Ask what they are not allowed to do for you. If they cannot name the self-laudatory prohibition or the rule on paying for recognition, they have not read the CPRA, and the disciplinary consequence attaches to the lawyer rather than to the agency. Agree who reviews copy before publication and build the step into the schedule.