.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

New Changes to Pennsylvania Attorney Advertising Rules Prohibit Text Messages to Solicit Prospective Clients

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025

February 1, 2025

by Scott R. Eberle

In October 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a series of amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct for legal services communications. The new rule changes, which went into effect on November 14, 2024, are part of an effort to update the attorney advertising rules, which many believed were outdated and unworkable.

Among the many changes that recently went into effect is the addition of new commentary to Rule 7.3(b), which explains that the prohibition of “live person-to-person contact” to solicit work includes text messaging. 

Rule 7.3(b) prohibits a lawyer from soliciting professional employment by live person-to-person contact except in a few enumerated circumstances. “Live person-to-person contact” is defined in comment [2] to the Rule as “in person, face-to-face, live telephone and other real-time visual or auditory person-to-person communications where the person is subject to a direct personal encounter without time for reflection.” The new comment further specifies, “[s]uch person-to-person contact includes text messages.” 

The prohibition of text message solicitation was an unexpected change to the new rules. The inclusion of texting in the definition of “person-to-person contact” was not part of the amendment initially proposed by the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. The version of the rule published for public comment in February 2021 specifically stated that text messaging was not prohibited. Moreover, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct—which the new Pennsylvania Rules were intended to mirror—permit text messaging. The ABA Model Rules exclude text messages from the definition of “person-to-person contact” on the basis that they are written communications recipients can easily disregard. 
 
A Pittsburgh-based legal marketing company, Text Ads and Marketing, LLC, has already filed suit, alleging the change to Rule 7.3(b) prohibiting text message solicitation violates First Amendment protections for commercial speech. Text Ads asserts that texts should not be considered “person-to-person contact” because recipients can easily opt to read them at a later time or simply ignore them. The lawsuit will be closely monitored for the impact it may have on the future of attorney advertising in Pennsylvania. 


 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.