Most firms know their state bar regulates advertising. What surprises people is how much ordinary social content counts as advertising, and how little of the risk sits in the obviously promotional posts. A case-result graphic is the post everyone reviews carefully. The comment reply that reassures a stranger about their situation is the one that quietly creates a problem.
What follows is the shape of the rules, not the rules themselves. Bar requirements differ meaningfully between jurisdictions, and a few differ enough that a compliant post in one state is a violation in the next. Treat this as the checklist of what to confirm with your own bar.
Almost every jurisdiction starts from the same place: a communication about legal services must not be false or misleading. That is broader than untruth. A statement can be entirely accurate and still be misleading if it creates an unjustified expectation about what you can achieve.
This is why result-focused content is the highest-risk category. A verdict figure is a fact. Posted without context, it implies a promise, because the reader has no way to know how unusual it was.
In practice, problems cluster in a handful of places rather than spreading evenly across everything a firm publishes.
The review process most firms design covers scheduled posts. It rarely covers the reply a partner types from their phone on a Sunday. Yet a reply that engages with a stranger's specific facts can look like advice, and can be read as forming a relationship that nobody intended.
The workable rule is that public replies answer general questions generally and move anything specific to a private channel. That single habit removes most of the exposure.
If you are approving content before it publishes, the useful questions are narrow and repeatable, which is what makes them survive a busy week.
Plenty of businesses can treat scheduling as fire-and-forget. A firm cannot, because the cost of one bad post is not a bad day of engagement, it is a bar complaint. Any system a firm uses should default to holding content for a human yes rather than publishing on a timer, and should keep a record of who approved what.
That is the reason Noian holds every post for approval by default rather than treating it as an advanced setting.
Assume every public thing your firm writes is advertising, and build the review around outcome language, specialisation terms and client detail.
Noian writes, schedules and publishes this kind of content for law firms, with every post held for your approval first.
See how it works for lawyers