Law firm marketing and the Polish codes of ethics: what is allowed and what only looks like it

When I talk to a law firm about a new website, sooner or later someone asks: "are we actually allowed to say that?". It is about client reviews, cases won, the word "specialisation", ads on Google. The answer is rarely "nothing is allowed", because both Polish bar associations now permit far more than they used to. It is rarely "anything goes" either, because the limits are specific and written down, paragraph by paragraph.

This piece walks through what usually ends up on a firm's website, its Google profile, LinkedIn and newsletter, and sets it against the current wording of the two Polish codes of professional ethics for lawyers. One caveat, stated once and clearly: EPKO is not a law firm, and this is neither legal advice nor an authoritative interpretation. I write as someone who builds websites and portals for lawyers and needs to know these rules so as not to design something the firm will later regret. The final word belongs to your bar association and to your own judgement.

If you are reading from outside Poland, one thing first. Poland has two separate regulated legal professions with very similar rights today: the adwokat (advocate), organised in the Polish Bar with the Naczelna Rada Adwokacka (NRA, the Polish Bar Council) at the top, and the radca prawny (attorney-at-law, often translated as legal adviser), organised in the Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych (KIRP, the National Chamber of Legal Advisers), governed by the Krajowa Rada Radców Prawnych (KRRP). Each has its own code of ethics, and the two treat marketing differently in several places.

Advocates are bound by the Zbiór Zasad Etyki Adwokackiej i Godności Zawodu, usually called the Kodeks Etyki Adwokackiej (KEA). The current consolidated text was published by the NRA Presidium in resolution no. 174/2026 of 23 June 2026. Marketing is covered by § 23 to § 23d. In May 2023 the NRA lifted the outright bans on commercial communication and replaced them with a list of what such communication must not contain. The code now speaks of "informacja handlowa" (commercial information), defined as any form of communication intended to promote, directly or indirectly, the services or image of an advocate (§ 23(2)).

Attorneys-at-law are bound by the Kodeks Etyki Radcy Prawnego (KERP), as amended by the Extraordinary National Congress of Legal Advisers on 8 July 2022 (resolution no. 1/2022), in force since 1 January 2023. Marketing is covered by Chapter 3, Articles 31 to 35. The key term is "informowanie o wykonywaniu zawodu" (informing about the practice of the profession): communication intended directly or indirectly to promote the attorney, their image, practice or firm, whatever its content, form or medium (Art. 31(2)). The details sit in a separate act, the Regulamin wykonywania zawodu radcy prawnego (Rules of Professional Practice, KRRP resolution no. 124/XI/2022 of 3 December 2022), Part V, § 15 to § 18.

If your firm has both advocates and attorneys-at-law as partners, each is bound by their own code. On a shared website the simplest approach is to follow the stricter of the two rules, so no partner is put in an awkward position.

Despite the different vocabulary, both codes point the same way. A firm may talk about itself, but the message must be true, factual and clearly attributed. It must not promise outcomes, compare itself with others or play on the emotions of someone in a difficult situation.

For advocates, the list of prohibitions is in § 23(3). Commercial information must not, among other things, be comparative, unreliable, deceptive, untrue, intrusive or inappropriate (point e), create even the likelihood of unjustified expectations about results (point f), refer to connections or influence (point g), contain evaluative content (point h), exploit credulity, a vulnerable position or the recipient's lack of knowledge (point j), or appeal to emotions or feelings (point k).

For attorneys-at-law, Art. 32(1) contains a similar list: it prohibits communication that is untrue or misleading, not factual, creates unjustified expectations, makes unreliable promises or guarantees, applies pressure, is intrusive, or compares the attorney's work with that of other identifiable persons or firms.

A good test I suggest to firms for every sentence on the website: can it be checked? "We have handled employment law cases since 2015" can. "We are the most effective firm in the region" cannot, and on top of that it is both evaluative and comparative.

The attorneys' rules give the most concrete guidance here. § 15 of the Rules lists, by way of example, what such communication may include: name and photo, professional CV, professional and academic titles, qualifications and experience, languages in which the firm can help, preferred areas of practice, the date the firm started, publications, professional awards, the KIRP logo, the legal form and address of the firm, means of contact, principles of providing legal assistance and setting fees, partners, regular collaborators, the sum of professional indemnity insurance, as well as the firm's mission, terms of cooperation and complaints procedure.

The advocates' code has no such list in its current wording. The logic is the other way round: commercial information is allowed as long as it does not breach the prohibitions in § 23(3). In practice the same elements (people, areas of practice, contact, fee principles, insurance) fit within those limits if they are presented factually.

One rule applies to both professions: the message must be clearly attributed. An advocate must mark commercial information as coming from them, in a way that allows them to be identified unambiguously (§ 23a(1)). An attorney-at-law must clearly label such communication (Art. 31(4)) and, under § 16 of the Rules, label it legibly, state what form of promotion it is, and make it easy to tell apart from content that is not promotional. On a website this translates into full firm details in the footer, named biographies instead of an anonymous "team of experts", and a clear separation between articles and the offer.

This is where we see problems most often, because these words come naturally when someone writes a law firm's copy the way they would write a shop's.

Neither code provides for a formal title of specialist. The attorneys' Rules speak of "preferred areas of practice", and the advocates' code prohibits evaluative and comparative content. So instead of "we are divorce specialists", it is safer to say what the firm does and since when: "I mainly handle family cases", "areas of practice", "the cases we help with most often". It says the same thing without asking the reader to take it on faith.

For the same reason, words such as "best", "most effective", "we guarantee" and "we will win your case" are out, and so are percentage counters of cases won. For an advocate such a figure at the very least creates the likelihood of unjustified expectations about results (§ 23(3)(f)), and for an attorney-at-law it creates an unjustified expectation (Art. 32(1)(5)(e)). Besides, nobody outside the firm can check how it was calculated.

This is where the two codes differ most, so it is worth reading carefully.

An advocate may refer to cases handled and to clients, and publish client reviews, under two conditions: first they inform the client of the form, content, manner and context of the publication, and then they hold the client's consent in written, electronic or documentary form (§ 23(4)). Above all this sits professional secrecy: commercial information must not breach it (§ 23(3)(b)), and secrecy covers everything the advocate learned in connection with their professional work (§ 19(1)).

An attorney-at-law may present client lists, client reviews, comments, references and recommendations only with the clients' consent (Art. 32(2)). There is, however, a firm exception: such information must not be presented at all for criminal cases, fiscal criminal cases, petty offence cases, family cases and guardianship cases, even with the client's consent.

On a website this usually means three things. Descriptions of typical matters ("we help employees in dismissal disputes") rather than a description of a specific, recognisable case. Reviews and client logos only with documented consent you can still find years later. And separate care for family and criminal matters if the firm has attorneys-at-law on board.

The firm's Google profile is the place you control least, and you are responsible for more of it than you might think.

An advocate is responsible for commercial information published by third parties on their behalf or for their benefit (§ 23a(2)), and if such information breaches the code, must take steps without delay to remove the breach (§ 23a(3)). The attorneys' code is similar: communication by an outside party conducted on behalf of, for the benefit of or in the interest of the attorney also counts (Art. 31(3)), and the attorney must ensure it complies with the code (Art. 32(3)). Interestingly, Art. 31(2)(2) says that simple, verifiable information about the attorney that does not serve promotional purposes and was prepared independently, in particular without payment, is not "informing" in the code's sense. A review a client wrote of their own accord is a different thing from a review that was bought or written by an agency.

The practical conclusion is simple: no paid reviews, no reviews from friends "to get started", no discounts for leaving a rating. Replies are a separate matter. When someone posts an unhappy review, it is tempting to explain what really happened. Yet every sentence about the course of a case may breach secrecy. In my view, even confirming that someone was a client is best treated as information covered by secrecy. A safe reply is short, polite and invites the person to get in touch directly.

An attorney-at-law may mention taking part in rankings and their position, but only in rankings that meet the conditions in the Rules (§ 15(5)). Under § 17 the organiser must publicly announce the ranking, the conditions of participation and the classification criteria, participation must be open to anyone who meets the conditions, the criteria must not mislead, and the organiser must have the right to verify the submitted data independently. § 18 adds detailed criteria, for example for rankings based on headcount or revenue.

The advocates' code has no separate provision on rankings. The general prohibitions in § 23(3) apply, including the ban on comparative and evaluative information. Before you put a ranking badge on the website, check who runs it and how, and if in doubt, ask your regional bar.

Here both codes are on the client's side. An advocate may present fee rates, methods of calculating them and the amount of professional indemnity insurance (§ 23b(1)), but any information about fees must be unambiguous and must state clearly whether the amount includes expenses, taxes and other charges (§ 23b(2)). The attorneys' Rules expressly mention the principles of setting fees, including their form or amount (§ 15(2)).

So you do not have to choose between "fees set individually" and a full price list. The middle ground often works best: how you charge (fixed fee, hourly rate, fee per stage), what the amount depends on and what is included. For a client who is nervous about the first call, that means a lot.

Advertising on Google or social media is no longer banned for advocates as such. The same content rules apply as everywhere else, plus one about placement: commercial information must not be placed somewhere inappropriate or unsuitable (§ 23(3)(ł)). For attorneys-at-law it is similar: communication that is intrusive, in an inappropriate place or invades privacy is prohibited (Art. 32(1)(6)).

Services that "deliver clients" call for care. An advocate may not make direct offers of legal assistance through third parties who are paid for it (§ 23a(4)), may not work with entities that acquire clients unlawfully or in breach of professional dignity, and may not pay or accept a benefit for referring a client (§ 23d). An attorney-at-law may not acquire clients through outside persons or entities by sharing the fee from that client with them, if they take no part in providing the legal assistance (Art. 33(3)), and may not accept payment for referring a client elsewhere (Art. 34).

If you work with an agency, you, not the agency, are responsible for the content of ads and posts. It is worth handing the agency these paragraphs in writing before they write the first headline, and agreeing that nothing goes out without your approval.

A factual blog is, in my view, the safest way for a firm to be present online. An article that explains how proceedings work or which documents to prepare helps the reader and promises nothing. The line is crossed where content or links unrelated to the profession appear: the advocates' code prohibits content or references inconsistent with practising as an advocate (§ 23(3)(l)), and the attorneys' code prohibits communication that is not factual, including content or links unrelated to the profession (Art. 32(1)(4)). For example, an article on inheritance law with an affiliate link to an online shop is already a problem.

The same applies on LinkedIn and other social media. In resolution no. 68/2022 of 10 September 2022 the NRA reminded advocates that their activity on social media must respect the dignity of the profession, including when a post is private. An attorney-at-law is bound by Art. 35: when performing professional activities electronically, they must always be clearly identifiable and must not act anonymously.

A newsletter is a separate case, because general law applies on top of the codes. Since 10 November 2024, Art. 398 of the Polish Electronic Communications Law requires the recipient's prior consent to receive commercial information, including by email. If you practise elsewhere in the EU, your country will have its own rules implementing the same ePrivacy principles. A sign-up form with explicit consent, an easy unsubscribe and a sensible frequency are the minimum, and they also answer the ban on intrusiveness in both codes.

All of this adds up to a fairly specific picture of a good law firm website. We build such websites so that the rules are part of the structure itself, rather than something only the copywriter has to watch:

In the background there are two things firms rarely ask about but should. The first is GDPR and professional secrecy: a contact form that collects only what is needed for a first contact, with a privacy notice, and does not invite people to describe their whole case in a text box. The advocates' code requires software and other measures that protect data from unauthorised disclosure (§ 19(5)) and particular care when sending confidential information by electronic means (§ 19(6)). That is why documents from clients are better received through a client portal with a login than as attachments to ordinary email. I write more about how we approach data on our GDPR page. The second is accessibility: a WCAG-compliant website, with readable contrast and full keyboard support, serves older people and screen reader users, and people who come to a law firm are often under stress and have no patience for an unreadable form.

What exactly we do for law firms is described on our page for law firms.

If you have a website, a profile or a campaign and you are not sure everything fits within your code, write to me through the contact form. We will look at what is on the site and suggest what is worth rebuilding so that it informs rather than persuades. I usually run the conversation about scope myself, and the website and rollout are done by the team. We leave the legal assessment to you and your bar association, and our job is to make sure the technology does not stand in its way. How we price this kind of work is on the pricing page.