Guides · Updated 06 Aug 2026
Asking clients for Google reviews without breaching the rules
You may ask a client for a review. Nothing prohibits it. But under the Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners, a review is "publicity" — and publicity that refers to your firm carries obligations even when you didn't write it, didn't ask for it, and don't control it.
Most guidance about getting reviews is written for restaurants.
The rules that apply to you are different, and one of them is genuinely surprising.
A note on sources: what follows refers to the Code of Conduct made under section 36(1) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014. The final Code was published in Government Gazette 42337. We're a web studio, not a law firm — read the paragraphs yourself and form your own view. That's a reasonable request to make of this particular audience.
A review is publicity
The Code defines publicity broadly. Paragraph 4.2.1 covers any direct or indirect reference to an attorney or firm, published by any written, pictorial or oral means, in any medium — and it expressly includes electronic and social media.
Then it goes further. The definition applies irrespective of whether the publicity was made, or paid for, at the instance, or with the knowledge or consent, of the attorney or firm.
Read that twice.
A review written by a former client, posted without asking you, that you didn't know existed — is publicity referring to your firm within the meaning of the Code.
The obligation most firms don't know about
Paragraph 4.4 is the part that catches people.
It says the responsibilities in paragraph 4.3 cannot be delegated. And where an attorney or firm becomes aware of publicity referring to it which conflicts with or infringes paragraph 4, the firm must immediately take appropriate steps reasonably necessary to have the publicity rectified or withdrawn, and publish the rectification in the same medium.
So: a client posts a glowing review that says you're better than the firm they used before.
Paragraph 4.3.5 says publicity must not disparage, compare, criticise the quality of, or claim superiority over another legal practitioner's service — whether or not that practitioner is identified.
You didn't write it. You didn't ask for it. But once you're aware of it, paragraph 4.4 requires you to take steps.
That's an uncomfortable position, and it's the reason "just ask everyone for reviews" is bad advice for a law firm.
The three that catch firms
1. Naming clients
Paragraph 4.3.6: publicity published by or on behalf of an attorney must not refer to a client by name unless the client's prior written consent has been obtained. The only stated exception relates to advertisements concerning the sale or letting of a client's property.
Written. Prior. Not "they said it was fine."
This bites the moment you take a Google review and put it on your website. The review on Google was published by the client. The testimonial on your homepage is published by you.
2. Comparative claims
Paragraph 4.3.5 again. Publicity must not compare your service to another practitioner's, or claim superiority — identified or not.
"Best divorce attorney in Pretoria" is a comparative claim. So is a client review saying you were better than the last firm they instructed.
3. Incentives
Paragraph 12.21 addresses touting: procuring or soliciting professional work by improper or unprofessional means, including the payment of money or offering any financial reward or other inducement to any person in return for the referral of professional work.
A discount in exchange for a review is not obviously the same as paying for a referral. It is close enough to the line that we'd suggest you don't test it.
Ask. Don't pay.
The confidentiality problem nobody mentions
This one isn't in the advertising rules. It's more fundamental.
A review confirms the person was your client.
For a restaurant that's meaningless. For a firm handling a divorce, a criminal defence, an insolvency, or a retrenchment, the existence of the professional relationship is itself information about that person.
Paragraph 3.6 of the Code requires legal practitioners to maintain privilege and confidentiality regarding the affairs of present or former clients.
The client can, of course, choose to disclose it themselves. That's their right, not yours. But there's a difference between a client who decides to post a review, and a firm that systematically prompts every client to make their matter publicly discoverable.
Practical consequence: be more careful in some practice areas than others. A conveyancing client leaving a review discloses that they bought a house. A family law client leaving a review discloses that their marriage ended.
What to actually do
Ask in person, at the right moment. After a matter concludes well. One sentence, no pressure, and never twice.
Ask individually, not in bulk. A blanket automated request to every closed matter is the version most likely to catch someone who'd rather not be publicly associated with the work you did.
Never offer anything for it.
Reply to every review. This matters as much as receiving them — and keep replies free of any detail about the matter. "Thank you, it was a pleasure working with you" is safe. Anything acknowledging what the work involved is not.
Read reviews when they arrive, not annually. Given paragraph 4.4, awareness is what triggers your obligation. A firm that never looks isn't protected by not looking.
Get written consent before putting any review on your own website. A short email is enough. Keep it.
Think about practice area. Some matters are ordinary. Some aren't.
A short version
| Ask a client for a review | Yes |
| Offer a discount for one | No |
| Put a named review on your website | Only with prior written consent |
| Reply to reviews | Yes, without matter detail |
| Leave a comparative review sitting there | Paragraph 4.4 says take steps |
| Prompt every client automatically | Think about who that exposes |
Read it yourself
The Code of Conduct is publicly available on the LPC website. Paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 run to about a page and a half.
You'll get more from reading them than from reading us describing them — and if your reading differs from ours, yours is the one that counts.
We help firms set up review systems that work within these constraints, as part of getting a practice visible locally. But the rules above apply whether we're involved or not, and most firms we review have never read them.
If you'd like your website and Google profile checked together, send us your URL.
Related guides
Your Google Business Profile matters more than your website
For someone searching 'attorney near me', the profile decides. The website is the second click, and often there isn't one.
Check your own law firm website in twenty minutes
Twelve checks from our sixty-check audit — the ones that need nothing but a phone. Most firms find three or four faults they didn't know about.