Law Firm Advertising Rules in Singapore: What Part 5 Actually Prohibits

Last updated 10 September 2026 — by Adrian Tan, SDM. Marketing guidance, not legal advice, and certainly not advice on professional conduct. Whether a particular piece of publicity complies is a question for the practice and, where necessary, for the Law Society; take it there before relying on anything here.

Most Singapore businesses can say almost anything in an advertisement provided it is true. A Singapore law practice cannot — and that gap is where nearly every marketing agency working with a law firm gets into trouble.

Part 5 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 runs from rule 37 to rule 49 and is titled, bluntly, “Rules applicable to touting and publicity”. It is not a code of practice or a guidance note but subsidiary legislation made under the Legal Profession Act 1966, and it closes off by name four tactics a performance marketer would reach for first:

• Success rates are prohibited outright. Not “must be substantiated” — prohibited.
• You may not compare fees or service quality with another practice. No comparison pages, no competitor-conquest copy.
• You may not pay a referrer a commission or any other consideration. That closes affiliate, CPA and most lead-gen models.
• Publicity that contains any information which cannot be verified is deemed misleading — on its face, without more.

And “publicity” is defined widely enough to catch an archived landing page. Here is the whole of Part 5, read as a marketing brief.

“Publicity” is defined to catch anything retrievable

Rule 2(1) defines publicity as any form of advertisement, and includes any advertisement that:

• is printed or contained in any medium for the communication of information; or
• appears in, or is communicated through or retrievable from, any mass medium (electronic or otherwise) or the Internet.

The operative words for anyone who works in search are “retrievable from”. That is an availability test, not a publication test. A 2019 landing page still indexed, an old PDF still served, a superseded practice-area page nobody links to, a syndicated article on a third-party site — all remain “publicity” while they remain retrievable. A Singapore law firm’s old advertising never stops being its advertising.

Two rules make that bite. Rule 42(1) puts the compliance duty on the practitioner for any publicity relating to their practice, whether by the practitioner or by any other person on their behalf — the agency’s work is the practitioner’s exposure. Rule 42(2) goes further: on becoming aware of any impropriety, the practitioner must use best endeavours to procure its rectification or withdrawal and prevent recurrence. Awareness triggers an active duty to take it down.

Rule 42(3) then gives the Council of the Law Society a direct power: where it determines that publicity is contrary to the Rules, it may order the practitioner or practice to alter, withdraw, remove or discontinue it. That is a takedown order over live creative. Rule 42(4) adds a small absolute: publicity must not use the armorial bearings of the Society.

The four hard prohibitions in rule 43

Rule 41 is permissive: subject to the Rules, a practitioner may publicise their own practice, or that of the practice they direct, partner in or work for, and may let employees do so. Rule 43 sets the boundaries.

Note how differently 43(1)(a) and 43(1)(b)(ii) are drafted. Expertise claims are permitted but conditional: they must be capable of justification. Success rates are not permitted at all — no evidence makes one publishable, because the rule prohibits mention of it rather than misstatement of it. This is the most misunderstood provision in Singapore legal marketing, and the one most often breached by an agency importing a playbook from another jurisdiction.

The confidentiality qualifier on 43(1)(b)(i) repays precision. Past cases and named clients are not banned outright — they are banned where mentioning them would result in a breach of any duty of confidentiality owed to a client or former client. A reported judgment already in the public domain sits differently from a matter described from the file. The safe default is that the duty is engaged unless someone senior has confirmed it is not.

Rule 43(3) adds one more: where a former practitioner is appointed to the judiciary, publicity must not refer to the appointment during their judicial tenure, though the name may remain where it forms part of the practice’s name. Rule 43(4) closes the loop — nothing in the Rules permits anything reasonably regarded as touting.

The seven-factor test for an expertise claim

Because “specialist”, “leading” and “expert” are the words a law firm most wants on its practice-area pages, rule 43(2) is the most operationally useful provision in Part 5. It lists the factors that may be taken into account in justifying such a claim:

The factors are permissive — “may be taken into account”, not a checklist to be scored. But they give a practice a defensible file. Before any expertise language goes live, record which factors support it and the evidence for each. That memo takes twenty minutes, is the difference between a justifiable claim and an indefensible one, and is something a marketing team can own without practising law.

Factor (d) deserves its flag in the table. “Level of success achieved” appearing in the justification list is not a back door around the success-rate prohibition. One governs whether you may call yourself expert; the other whether you may publish an outcome statistic. Separate questions, opposite answers.

Rule 44: three standards that go beyond ordinary advertising law

Rule 44(1) prohibits publicising a practice in a manner likely to diminish public confidence in the profession or bring it into disrepute; that may reasonably be regarded as misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, false or unbefitting the dignity of the legal profession; or that the Council may determine to be an undesirable manner of publicising a practice. That last limb is open-ended by design, so a tactic can be non-compliant without any rule naming it. The prudent question is not “does a rule prohibit this?” but “would this be defensible to the Council?”

Rule 44(2) then defines misleading publicity in four limbs, two of them considerably stricter than general advertising law. Publicity is misleading, deceptive, inaccurate or false if it:

• (a) contains a material misrepresentation;
• (b) omits to state a material fact;
• (c) contains any information which cannot be verified;
• (d) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results that can be achieved.

Limb (c) is the one to sit with. It does not say “unverified” — it says cannot be verified. A claim that is not in principle checkable is misleading by definition under this rule, which rules out an entire register of ordinary marketing language: “unrivalled service”, “the most trusted”, “second to none”, “unparalleled attention to detail”. None is a lie. All are unverifiable, and unverifiable is the test.

Limb (d) reaches further than a success rate. A testimonial describing a favourable result, a headline built on a large settlement figure, or a call to action implying a particular outcome can each create an unjustified expectation even where every underlying fact is true.

Together, (b) and (c) invert the usual copywriting instinct. Persuasive writing works by selecting the strongest true things and leaving the rest out; under rule 44(2), leaving out a material fact is itself the offence, and adding an unverifiable superlative is also the offence. What remains is specific, checkable, complete description — which is also what performs best in search. The regime pushes a law firm toward the substantive practice-area content a serious content marketing programme is built on, and away from adjectives that never ranked anyway.

Rules 39 and 40: why affiliate and lead-gen models do not work here

Rule 39(1) prohibits touting, or anything likely to lead to a reasonable inference that it was done for the purpose of touting. Rule 39(2) then sets out seven duties where there is reason to believe a client was referred by another person. One is decisive for marketing: rule 39(2)(b) — the practitioner “must not reward the referror by the payment of any commission or other form of consideration”. That phrase is deliberately broad and not confined to cash: a reciprocal arrangement, a discounted service, a marketing contra or free work in exchange for a pipeline all sit within “consideration”. So:

• Affiliate programmes paying per lead or per matter — unavailable.
• Cost-per-acquisition lead vendors — unavailable, because payment is consideration for the referral.
• Directory or comparison sites charging per enquiry rather than a flat listing fee — the payment structure is what matters.
• Referral fee splits with accountants, property agents or corporate-services firms — unavailable.

The remaining duties in rule 39(2) protect the client relationship: the referrer must not undermine the practitioner’s independence or influence the advice or the nature and extent of the practice, the client must be advised impartially, and the practitioner must communicate directly with the client to obtain or confirm instructions, when advising and at all appropriate stages. A funnel in which a referral partner remains the intermediary does not satisfy that last one.

Rule 40 adds a regime for conveyancing referrals — the point where property portals, developers and agents meet law firms. Any conveyancing referral agreement must be in writing and contain four terms: the referrer undertakes to comply with the Rules; the practice may terminate on reasonable belief of breach; the referrer’s publicity must not suggest the conveyancing service is free, that different charges apply depending on whether the client instructs the practice, or that the availability or price of any other service offered by the referrer or a related party is conditional on instructing the practice; and the referrer must do nothing to impair or influence the client’s free choice of lawyer.

Read that third term as a copy rule for the referrer’s marketing. “Free legal fees with every unit”, “conveyancing from $X if you use our panel”, “package price includes legal” — each is capable of falling foul of it, and the duty to prevent it sits on the law practice through the agreement it must make. If you market for a developer or agency and the offer bundles conveyancing, this is the rule to check. Rule 40(2) requires termination on breach, with no cure period; existing matters may continue but no further referrals may be accepted.

Sponsorship, pro bono clinics and the limits on acknowledgement

Two rules govern what law firms do for goodwill, and both restrict what may be said about it.

Rule 45 permits contributions to good causes by donation, sponsorship, subscription or free services, and permits public acknowledgement by the recipient. But rule 45(2) requires reasonable steps to ensure that acknowledgement states no information about the practitioner or practice except the individual’s name, the fact they are a legal practitioner and their practice name — or, for a practice, the practice name. That is the whole permitted acknowledgement: no tagline, no practice areas, no logo lock-up with a strapline. Rule 45(3) separately permits endowing prizes and scholarships and being named as the endower. “Good cause” includes any registered charity and any benevolent cause, or one concerned with education, sports or the arts.

Rule 47 deals with free legal advice given at a facility set up to provide legal assistance to the public. A practitioner may give it, but must take reasonable steps to ensure no information about themselves is publicised beyond name, status and practice name. Rule 47(3) is explicit: they must not distribute business cards, brochures, leaflets or pamphlets there, and must not act for anyone they advised unless they act pro bono.

That second limb removes the free-consultation-as-lead-magnet model in the clinic context entirely. The clinic is not a top-of-funnel channel. It is a public service, and the Rules keep it one.

Rules 48 and 49: a geo-targeting rule written in 2015

Rule 48(1) provides that a practitioner may publicise their practice in a country other than Singapore, and where they do, rules 43 to 47 do not apply — though rule 48(2) requires the publicity not to be contrary to that country’s laws. The obvious question for a digital campaign is where online publicity is “conducted”. Rule 49 answers it directly, and presciently for 2015:

• publicity is conducted in a jurisdiction in which it is reasonably expected to be received or accessible in the normal course of events; and
• publicity is not conducted in a jurisdiction if the receipt of the publicity there is incidental.

In practical terms that is a targeting test. A campaign aimed at Indonesia or Vietnam, on channels and in languages directed there, is not conducted in Singapore merely because a Singapore resident can see it — that receipt is incidental. A campaign that includes Singapore in its targeting, or an English page on a .sg domain optimised for Singapore intent, is plainly expected to be accessible here, and rules 43 to 47 apply in full.

Two cautions before treating rule 48 as an escape hatch. “Incidental” does real work, and a global, untargeted asset is not incidental anywhere. And rule 48 disapplies only rules 43 to 47 — rule 37’s guiding principle, rule 38, the touting prohibition in 39 and the whole of rule 42, including the Council’s takedown power, apply wherever the publicity is conducted.

What a compliant law firm marketing programme looks like

Strip out what Part 5 forbids and a clear strategy remains — more than can be said for most regulated verticals.

Search is the channel. With comparisons, success rates and referral commissions closed, and rule 44(2)(c) punishing unverifiable superlatives, what is left is substance: useful explanations of the law as it applies to a client’s problem. That is exactly what ranks. Depth of practice-area content, author attribution to named practitioners and technical health carry a legal site further than any campaign — our complete guide to SEO in Singapore is the starting point, with the wider vertical picture in our guide to marketing professional services in Singapore.

Paid search is available; the copy is the constraint. Nothing in Part 5 closes a channel — unlike the regime in our guide to moneylender advertising rules, where the channel list itself is closed. Part 5 constrains the words. Responsive search ad headlines are where unverifiable superlatives and implied outcomes creep in, and automated asset generation is a real risk: an ad platform writing headlines from your landing page can produce exactly the claim rule 44(2) prohibits. Review generated assets, and see our complete guide to Google Ads in Singapore for the mechanics.

Build a claims register. Every expertise claim on the site gets a row: the claim, the rule 43(2) factors relied on, the evidence, the date, and who approved it. It is the most useful artefact a legal marketing team can keep, and it turns rule 43(1)(a) from a worry into a process.

Audit what is still retrievable. Because the rule 2(1) definition reaches anything retrievable online, an old asset is a live compliance item. Crawl the domain, pull everything indexed, and review historical pages, PDFs and syndicated content against Part 5 as it stands now. Rule 42(2)’s best-endeavours duty starts the moment someone notices.

Handle third-party content deliberately. Rule 46 permits a practice to be publicised in, or with, the publicity of a third party, client or not. But rule 42(1) makes the practitioner responsible for publicity made “by any other person on the legal practitioner’s behalf” — so directory profiles, guest articles, podcast descriptions and event listings written by someone else are all in scope, and someone has to read them.

Everything outside Part 5 still applies. A law firm’s website carries the obligations in the legal requirements for a Singapore website; an enquiry form and client-intake data sit inside the PDPA rules on marketing and tracking and, for identity data, the NRIC rules; and any refer-a-friend structure needs checking against rule 39(2)(b) and the general referral programme rules.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Singapore law firm advertise?
Yes. Rule 41 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 permits a legal practitioner to publicise their own practice or that of the practice they direct, partner in or are employed by, and to allow employees to do so, subject to the Rules. There is no channel prohibition. What Part 5 restricts is the content and the commercial structures behind it.

Can a Singapore law firm publish its success rate?
No. Rule 43(1)(b)(ii) requires that publicity make no direct or indirect mention of the success rate of the practitioner, the law practice or any member of it. Unlike an expertise claim, which rule 43(1)(a) permits provided it can be justified, a success rate is prohibited outright, so no amount of evidence makes it publishable.

Can a Singapore law firm compare itself to another firm?
Not on fees or quality. Rule 43(1)(c) requires that publicity make no comparison or criticism in relation to the fees charged, or the quality of the services provided, by any other legal practitioner or law practice. That closes comparison tables, “cheaper than” copy and competitor-conquest messaging aimed at other practices.

Can a Singapore law firm pay for referrals or run an affiliate programme?
No. Rule 39(2)(b) provides that where a client is referred, the practitioner or practice must not reward the referrer by the payment of any commission or other form of consideration. “Other form of consideration” is broader than cash and covers reciprocal arrangements and contra deals, so affiliate programmes, cost-per-lead vendors and referral fee splits are all unavailable.

Do the rules apply to a law firm’s old web pages?
Yes. Rule 2(1) defines publicity as any form of advertisement, including one that appears in, is communicated through, or is retrievable from any mass medium or the Internet. An archived page, an old PDF or a superseded practice-area page remains publicity while it is retrievable. Rule 42(2) also requires a practitioner who becomes aware of impropriety in publicity relating to their practice to use best endeavours to procure its rectification or withdrawal.

The takeaway

Part 5 is the strictest content regime an ordinary Singapore business is likely to meet, and it is strict in an unusual direction. It does not close channels — a law firm can run search, social, display and content like anyone else. It closes claims, and the commercial structures most performance marketing runs on. Three rules are absolute: success rates are prohibited outright rather than merely regulated; fee and quality comparisons against another practice are prohibited; and paying a referrer any commission or other consideration is prohibited. Everything else is negotiable with evidence.

The interesting consequence is that rule 44(2)(c) — publicity containing any information which cannot be verified is misleading — forces legal marketing toward specificity. The adjectives go. What is left is the practice areas explained properly, the people named and credentialed, and the process described honestly: a harder brief to write and a better one to rank, which is why the best-performing Singapore law firm sites tend to be the compliant ones rather than in spite of it.

If you market a Singapore law practice and want a programme built inside these constraints — a claims register, an audit of everything still retrievable, and practice-area content deep enough to rank on substance — that is what our SEO team in Singapore does; see our client case studies. Start with our guide to marketing professional services and our complete guide to content marketing, then the adjacent regimes: health product advertising, private education advertising and recruitment advertising.