AI search for Washington law firms

Three rules every Washington page has to respect

RPC 7.1 says a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact needed to keep the whole statement from misleading. Comment [3] says a truthful report of past results may be misleading if it leads a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained without reference to each client's facts.

Specialist claims are handled in comment [8] to RPC 7.1, under the heading "Areas of Expertise/Specialization." A lawyer is generally permitted to say they are a "specialist" or practice a "specialty," subject to the false or misleading standard. A lawyer may say they are certified as a specialist only if the certification comes from an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the American Bar Association or a similar body, and the certifying organization must be named.

RPC 7.3 permits solicitation by any means, subject to four exceptions in RPC 7.3(a)(1) to (4): the solicitation is false or misleading, the person could not exercise reasonable judgment because of their condition, the person has said they do not want to be solicited, or the contact involves coercion, duress, or harassment. Comment [1] says communications to the general public, such as websites, typically are not solicitations.

The current RPC 7.1 text has no separate name and office address clause; that requirement sat in the old RPC 7.2(c), which is now reserved. Your pages should still name the firm and its lawyers. Why this matters more in AI search: an assistant may lift one sentence, such as a "certified" claim with the certifying organization left out, and that sentence is all the reader sees.

What the WSBA has said about AI

The WSBA issued Advisory Opinion 202505, "Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice," in 2025. It works through competence, diligence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, and billing under RPCs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3. It says lawyers cannot cede professional judgment or responsibility to AI tools, warns that consumer AI tools without confidentiality assurances pose serious risks for client information, and says lawyers may not charge for time saved. For intake chatbots, it suggests disclaiming an attorney-client relationship until one is expressly formed.

The opinion does not analyze advertising or RPC 7.1. Your pages are governed by RPC 7.1 whoever drafts them, which is why every page we deliver goes through attorney review. For the broader question, see whether lawyers can use AI to write website content.

Washington questions need Washington answers

Generic legal content fails in AI search because it answers the national question, not the local one. Probate is a clear example. Under RCW 11.68.011(1), a personal representative may petition the court for nonintervention powers, whether or not the decedent left a will. Under RCW 11.68.090(1), a personal representative with those powers can sell property, settle claims, and distribute the estate without court orders, notice, or approval, except as the chapter provides.

A page that tells Washington families the court must approve each step of an estate gets the process wrong for many of them. The estate planning guide shows how state detail decides citations for that practice.

Washington markets

We write for firms statewide. Market guides cover the questions and local facts specific to each area:

• Seattle

Seattle pages have to reflect a King County Superior Court that runs two full-service courthouses, one in Seattle and one in Kent.

What we build for Washington firms

• Practice-area pages written to RPC 7.1, with "specialist" and "certified" language checked against comment [8]
• County pages only where you take clients, with the superior court locations named correctly
• Answer posts for the questions Washington clients ask, each linked to the right practice page

Practice guides: personal injury, where comment [3] on past results applies to every case list and RPC 7.3 comment [10] names soliciting an accident victim in medical distress as an example of prohibited duress, and family law, where the courthouse a King County reader needs depends on where they live.

Keep reading