3.3 Role Communication, Advertising & Solicitation

NFPA Rule 1.7 is short and heavily tested: a paralegal’s title shall be fully disclosed. The Ethical Considerations turn that sentence into a communications protocol. EC-1.7(a) requires the title to clearly indicate the individual’s status and to be disclosed in all business and professional communications, both physical and digital, to avoid misunderstandings about the paralegal’s role. EC-1.7(b) requires the title if the paralegal’s name appears on business cards, letterhead, email, websites, brochures, directories, and advertisements. EC-1.7(c) forbids using letterhead, cards, or other promotional materials to create a fraudulent impression of the paralegal’s status or ability to provide services. EC-1.7(d) and (e) forbid using or helping to issue a fake or misleading degree, diploma, or certificate. A real CORE Registered Paralegal (CRP) credential may appear next to the name. “Esq.,” “Attorney,” “Counsel,” “J.D.” used to imply licensure the person does not have, or a purchased diploma-mill certificate, may not.

The disclosure duty is audience-blind. You owe it to clients, to courts and clerks, to opposing counsel and their staff, to vendors, and to anyone who reads your card or your email footer. A client who thinks you are the lawyer will ask you for legal advice. A clerk who thinks you are counsel of record will accept a filing you cannot sponsor. Opposing counsel who thinks you are the advocate may negotiate a stipulation you cannot make. The disclosure is what keeps those conversations on the permitted side of Rule 1.8.

How to identify yourself

The exam-safe pattern is Name + true credential + nonlawyer title.

• Correct: Jane Doe, CRP, Paralegal
• Correct: Jane Doe, Paralegal to Attorney Luis Chen
• Correct email footer: name, title “Paralegal,” firm name, phone, and a one-line statement that she is not an attorney and cannot give legal advice
• Incorrect: Jane Doe, Esq.
• Incorrect: Jane Doe, J.D. on a litigation signature block when Jane is not admitted (a degree is not a license)
• Incorrect: Jane Doe with no title on firm letterhead that lists partners above her in the same typeface
• Incorrect: Law Offices of Jane Doe when Jane is a paralegal

Oral identification follows the same rule. When you call a witness, a claims adjuster, or opposing counsel’s office, the first sentence is “This is Jane Doe, a paralegal in Attorney Chen’s office.” If the other side says “let me speak with counsel of record, Jane Doe,” you correct the title before the substance. You do not accept “counsel of record” and plan to fix it later.

Courtroom and filing contexts are stricter, not looser. A paralegal may appear at counsel table if the judge allows it, may handle exhibits, and may speak to the clerk about a scheduling matter while clearly identified as staff. A paralegal may not argue the motion, examine a witness, or sign the pleading as counsel. If local rules permit a paralegal to sign a certificate of service, the signature block still says “Paralegal,” not “Attorney for Defendant.”

Letterhead and the “we” language trap

Firm letterhead that includes staff names is generally acceptable when each nonlawyer is labeled Paralegal (or another accurate nonlawyer title) and the design does not suggest that the paralegal is a partner or a member of the bar. Several state ethics opinions have objected to letterhead that lists a paralegal in the same column and typeface as partners with no title, or that uses “and Associates” in a way that sweeps the paralegal into the lawyer group.

The subtler trap is “we” language. A paralegal who writes “We have concluded that you have a strong claim and we will file your complaint Friday” is speaking as if the firm’s legal judgment is the paralegal’s. A paralegal who writes “Our legal opinion is that you should reject the offer” has given advice and implied authority to state the firm’s legal opinion. Safer language assigns verbs to the correct actor: “I will give your email to Attorney Chen, who will decide whether to file and will advise you on the offer.” “We” is not automatically forbidden — “we received the records” is a fact — but “we” plus a legal conclusion is a dual UPL and disclosure failure.

Freelance and virtual paralegals have a second letterhead problem. Using stationery that looks like a law firm, a gavel logo, or “Legal Services of Jane Doe, CRP” offered directly to the public implies the paralegal can deliver lawyer services. NFPA’s freelance definition assumes the client of the paralegal is the attorney. Marketing copy aimed at consumers (“I will prepare your estate plan”) is both a Rule 1.7 disclosure failure and a Rule 1.8 UPL problem.

Advertising must not be false or misleading

ABA Model Rule 7.1 is the attorney rule that sets the advertising floor: a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. Rule 7.2 allows advertising through any media, with limits on giving anything of value for a recommendation (other than the usual exceptions for ad costs, approved lawyer-referral services, and reciprocal nonprofit referral agreements) and with a requirement that the communication include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.

Those rules bind the lawyer who is responsible for the firm’s website, directory listing, and sponsored posts. They reach the paralegal in two ways. First, Rule 5.3 makes the lawyer responsible for staff-created content that would violate 7.1 if the lawyer published it. Second, NFPA EC-1.7(c) independently forbids the paralegal from using promotional materials to create a fraudulent impression of status. A firm homepage that puts Jane Doe’s CRP headshot in the “Our Attorneys” grid, or a headline that says “Jane Doe will represent you at your deposition,” is misleading even if a footer somewhere on the site says “some team members are not lawyers.” A paid directory listing that describes Jane as “personal injury counsel” is the same error. Truthful statements are allowed: “Jane Doe, CRP, is a paralegal who drafts discovery under attorney supervision” is accurate.

Do not claim results you cannot verify, imply a specialty certification the person does not hold, or use a credential that is not yours. “Certified” is a regulated-sounding word. CRP is a real NFPA credential and may be used as “CORE Registered Paralegal.” Invented strings such as “Board-Certified Trial Paralegal” are 7.1 problems unless a bona fide organization actually issued that credential.

Solicitation is tighter than advertising

Advertising is a widely distributed communication about services (a website, a billboard, a social-media page that is not aimed at a particular known potential client). Solicitation, under ABA Model Rule 7.3, is a communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer that is directed to a specific person the lawyer knows or reasonably should know needs legal services in a particular matter, and that offers to provide legal services for that matter.

Rule 7.3 generally prohibits live person-to-person solicitation for pecuniary gain — in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact — when the motive is money, subject to narrow exceptions (other lawyers; persons with a close family, close personal, or prior professional relationship; and persons who routinely use the type of legal services for business purposes). The Rule also forbids solicitation, even in writing, when the target has made known a desire not to be solicited or when the solicitation involves coercion, duress, or harassment. Many jurisdictions still require “Advertising Material” on targeted written solicitations; the Model Rule itself has been revised over time, so on the PCCE focus on the live targeted pitch and on coercion, not on a memorized typeface rule from one state.

A paralegal cannot run around Rule 7.3. Sending the paralegal to the hospital room, the jail intake desk, or the crash scene to sign up the injured person is still solicitation on behalf of the lawyer. So is a live-chat pop-up in which the paralegal, knowing this visitor just described a pending eviction, says “hire us tonight and I will tell you what to file.” Ordinary intake of a person who called the firm is not solicitation. Handing a business card that correctly says “Paralegal” to someone who asked “who are you” is identification, not a pitch.

Fee-splitting and paying for referrals are integrity problems as well as advertising problems. NFPA EC-1.2(f) forbids a paralegal from splitting or sharing legal fees with a lawyer or law practice and from receiving payment for the referral of legal business. Compensation may reflect the quantity, quality, and value of the work; it may not, by advance agreement, be contingent on the outcome of a particular case or class of cases. A paralegal who is paid a bounty for each signed retainer is in the solicitation-and-fee-share box even if the website is pristine.

Social media and the Facebook-group hypothetical

Social media is advertising plus UPL plus confidentiality in one screen. A professional profile must carry the same title disclosure as a business card. Posting “we won $2 million last week” without the lawyer’s approval and without the context Rule 7.1 requires is a misleading communication. Discussing a pending client matter, even without the client’s name, can be a Rule 1.5 / ABA 1.6 confidentiality breach if the facts identify the matter.

The designed PCCE hypo is the helpful comment in a public group: “My landlord served a 3-day notice — do I have to move out, and what should I write in the answer?” A reply that applies the jurisdiction’s eviction statute to those facts and offers a sample answer paragraph is legal advice. It is UPL even though no fee was charged and even though the audience is “the internet.” It is also a role-communication failure if the commenter does not clearly identify as a nonlawyer — and identifying as a nonlawyer does not legalize the advice. The permitted responses are general information (“deadlines in eviction cases are short; consider contacting a tenants’ clinic or a licensed attorney today”) or a referral, not a tailored pleading.

The same analysis covers Reddit AMAs, Nextdoor threads, TikTok “duet my ticket,” and answering a former classmate’s text about “a quick contract question.” Live-stream Q&A in which viewers describe their facts and you tell them what to do is live targeted advice with an audience. It is not pro bono community service under NFPA Rule 1.4 unless a lawyer is supervising and the work stays inside permitted delegation. Rule 1.4’s pro bono aspiration still requires attorney supervision unless a statute or court rule authorizes the nonlawyer to act.

When you leave a firm, take the disclosure duty with you. A LinkedIn headline that silently upgrades you from “Paralegal” to “Legal Consultant — litigation strategy” the week you go freelance is an EC-1.7(c) problem. Update every public surface the same day your role changes, and keep client confidences off those surfaces entirely.