Eight families. Every draft passes all of them.
This page is not written by hand: it is generated from the filter's source, so it cannot drift from what actually runs. If a rule changes in the code, this page changes with it — and the generator refuses to publish if an example it documents is no longer caught.
Each one blocks a class of statement a lawyer may not publish, whatever the model that wrote the draft thinks.
Deterministic checks, not instructions in a prompt. A regular expression does not change its mind.
The hash of the filter's source. It appears on every reply we publish, so a reply can always be traced to the rules that cleared it.
The 241 reply texts we publish — on this site and in every report sent — all pass. A filter that blocks our own writing would be a filter we do not believe in.
What is blocked, and why
One entry per family: the rule it enforces, the source, an example the code catches, and the reply published in its place.
Confirming a client relationship
A negative review does not open the self-defence exception of Rule 1.6(b)(5). A lawyer may not confirm publicly that a reviewer was ever a client. Caught: “Thank you for trusting us with your case!” Published instead: “Thank you for taking the time to write.”
ABA Formal Opinion 496 (2021); Florida Bar Opinions 20-1 and 21-1 · 6 patterns · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
Any fact about a matter
Information relating to a representation is confidential whatever its source, including a review the client wrote themselves. Caught: “The insurance company's policy limits capped what we could recover.” Published instead: “We won't discuss details in this space.”
Model Rule 1.6; Florida Bar Opinion 20-1 · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
A figure
An amount is a case fact, and a past result stated without context is a misleading communication. Caught: “We were glad we could get you the $45,000 settlement.” Published instead: “Our professional obligations limit what we can say publicly about any individual matter.”
Model Rule 1.6 and Model Rule 7.1; Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
A promise or a superlative
A communication about a lawyer's services may not be false or misleading, and an unverifiable superlative is misleading. Caught: “We're the best injury firm in Phoenix and we always win.” Published instead: “Thank you for the kind words, and for taking the time to write them down.”
Model Rule 7.1 · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
Anything of value for a review
Asking for a review is allowed; giving anything of value in exchange is not, and incentivised reviews are separately unlawful. Caught: “Leave us 5 stars and we'll send a gift card.” Published instead: “— blocked, with no replacement: nothing of value is ever offered for a review.”
Model Rule 7.2(b); FTC Rule on Consumer Reviews and Testimonials · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
Contesting the reviewer in public
Every opinion points the same way: invite a private conversation, never dispute the account in public. Caught: “You never came to our office and this is a fake review.” Published instead: “If you'd like to talk it through, please call our office and ask for the managing attorney.”
No single written rule; convergent guidance in ABA Formal Op. 496 and state opinions · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
A case or file number
An identifier ties the review to a matter as surely as a name does. Caught: “Your case number 24-CV-1183 is still open.” Published instead: “We won't discuss details in this space.”
Model Rule 1.6 · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
Length over 90 words
Past ninety words a reply starts telling a story, and a story about a matter is exactly what may not be told.
Not a rule of professional conduct — a rule of ours · 1 pattern · corpus version 5b383f127a0c
It is not a substitute for a lawyer's judgment, and it is not legal advice. It encodes the lines that are common to the ABA Model Rules and the state opinions we have read; each state adopts them its own way.
It blocks statements, not intentions. A draft that passes every family can still be wrong for a particular review, which is why a person reads every draft and the firm approves each one.
The sources are cited so that a lawyer can check them. Where a family rests on convergent guidance rather than one written rule, the entry says so.