Florida Bar AI Advertising Compliance Checklist

By Bob Levin (Chief Technology Officer) Professional Mediation Insights | April 27, 2026

Florida Bar AI Advertising Compliance Checklist

The Florida Bar has extended Rule 4-7 (Lawyer Advertising) and Advisory Opinion 24-1 (Generative AI) to cover

AI-driven communications, capability claims, and AI-assisted content. Use this checklist to confirm your firm’s AI-touched marketing is defensible — before a complaint is filed.

1. Chatbot & Website AI Disclosure

Authority: Rule 4-7.13 (deceptive or inherently misleading advertising) · Advisory Opinion 24-1

☐ Your website chatbot identifies itself as an AI (non-human) before substantive communication begins.

☐ The chatbot explicitly states it is not a lawyer and does not provide legal advice.

☐ The chatbot does not communicate in a manner that is coercive, intrusive, or misleading.

☐ Chat transcripts are retained consistent with your firm’s document-retention policy.

☐ A human reviews every intake handoff where the chatbot collected client information.

2. AI Capability Claims in Marketing

Authority: Rule 4-7.13 — claims must be objectively verifiable and not inherently misleading.

☐ Every claim such as “AI-powered intake” or “AI-driven case analysis” is objectively verifiable.

☐ Marketing language does not suggest AI exercises legal judgment or replaces attorney review.

☐ Comparative claims (e.g., “our AI is faster than X”) are supported by documented evidence.

☐ Testimonials that reference AI tools are from real clients and are not AI-generated.

3. Supervision & Attorney Attestation

Authority: Advisory Opinion 24-1 — confidentiality, oversight, competence, and candor.

☐ A named supervising attorney has reviewed every AI-assisted client-facing output before it was published or

sent.

☐ Your firm maintains a written AI-use policy that every staff member has read and acknowledged.

☐ Client-confidential information is never entered into general-purpose or non-confidential AI tools.

☐ AI-generated citations, statutes, and case references are independently verified by a licensed attorney.

☐ Fee arrangements reflect actual attorney time — not time inflated by AI-assisted drafting.

4. Blog, Article & Byline Requirements

Authority: Rule 4-7 · Advisory Opinion 24-1. (Also rewarded by Google’s April 2026 core update.)

☐ Every published article has a named human author — never “Admin,” “Firm Team,” or an unattributed byline.

☐ The author’s biography page lists Bar admissions, credentials, photo, and direct contact.

☐ AI-assisted content was reviewed and approved by a named attorney prior to publication.

☐ Any reference to case results includes the required “past results do not guarantee a similar outcome”

language.

☐ Content does not create unjustified expectations regarding legal outcomes or the value of legal services.

Author

Bob Levin

Chief Technology Officer

As an AI strategist, business consultant, and technology leader, Bob Levin has spent over 16 years helping businesses harness digital innovation and artificial intelligence to stay competitive and drive profitability. …

View all posts