SB 37 (Umberg) amends the Business and Professions Code to broaden what counts as lawyer advertising, impose new content and disclosure requirements, and create expanded private remedies for violations. The bill requires each attorney participating in joint advertising to sign an agreement taking express liability for ad content, clarifies when awards or recognitions may be referenced, and mandates that ads disclose at least one bona fide office location or the attorney’s State Bar address.
On enforcement, SB 37 layers stronger private enforcement tools on top of the State Bar review process: it (1) authorizes private suits with statutory damages and attorney’s fees for violations of solicitation, referral, and advertising rules; (2) tightens the State Bar’s complaint timelines and service requirements; and (3) preserves and in some places increases civil penalty exposure per broadcast or unique advertisement. Professionals who place, manage, or host lawyer ads—law firms, referral services, ad collectives, and advertising platforms—will need new compliance processes and contractual protections to limit liability and manage State Bar interactions.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 37 broadens the statutory definitions of “advertise” and “advertisement” to include communications directed to limited groups (targeted messages), bans misleading claims and fee-based awards, requires conspicuous disclosure of office location or State Bar address, and mandates joint-advertiser agreements placing liability on participating lawyers. It also creates private civil causes of action with statutory damages for violations of solicitation, referral, and advertising rules and revises State Bar complaint and withdrawal timelines.
Who It Affects
California-licensed attorneys and law firms that advertise or participate in joint advertising, certified lawyer referral services, advertising collectives/cooperatives, nonlawyer entities that refer clients, and the State Bar which must administer shorter review deadlines. Broadcasters and advertising agencies that simply disseminate or prepare ads remain excluded from content rules under the bill.
Why It Matters
This shifts enforcement from a mostly regulator-driven regime to one in which private plaintiffs can recover statutory damages (up to $100,000 per violation or per unique ad) and attorney’s fees—heightening litigation risk for advertisers and referral services while testing the State Bar’s capacity to screen complaints quickly.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 37 revises multiple articles of the Business and Professions Code to tighten controls over how legal services are solicited and advertised in California. The bill expands the statutory definitions of “advertisement” and “advertise” so that a written, recorded, or electronic communication aimed at the public or a targeted group counts as advertising if it encourages individuals to obtain a lawyer’s services.
That change brings targeted and limited‑audience messages—things like direct digital outreach or social‑media targeting—squarely within the advertising rules.
On content, the bill forbids misleading, deceptive, or false statements about a lawyer’s skills, experience, or record, and narrows permissible references to awards or recognitions to those that are not conferred simply by membership and do not require payment. Ads must also display, or where spoken make intelligible, the city, town, or county of at least one bona fide office or provide the State Bar address on record; joint advertisers operating on constrained platforms may comply by linking to a landing page with the required disclosures.SB 37 strengthens private enforcement in three places.
It authorizes any person to sue for violations of the runner/capper prohibition (Section 6152) and of unlawful referral service operation (Section 6155) with statutory damages between $5,000 and $100,000 per violation (or three times actual damages), plus fees and injunctive relief. It also allows consumers misled by an ad to sue for statutory damages after first filing a State Bar complaint and after a State Bar finding of substantial evidence if the advertiser fails to withdraw the ad or later rebroadcasts it.
The bill keeps existing civil enforcement options (including $5,000 per broadcast civil suits) while layering these higher statutory damages in specific contexts.Procedurally, the bill requires personal service of State Bar complaints, gives advertisers nine days after service to voluntarily withdraw the ad pending review, requires the State Bar to review the complained‑of ad within 21 days, and, upon a State Bar finding of substantial evidence, requires immediate withdrawal for electronic media (72 hours) and expedited withdrawal for other media (notice within 72 hours; actual withdrawal as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days). The State Bar review process is extended to joint advertisers who comply with the joint‑advertising subdivision; other advertisers remain subject to a 14‑day notice-to-withdraw route before direct civil enforcement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands “advertisement” to include communications directed to a limited group—not just mass public broadcasts—bringing targeted digital outreach under advertising rules.
Each attorney or law firm in a joint advertisement must sign a joint advertising agreement with the managing entity and expressly assume liability for the ad’s content.
Consumers can recover statutory damages of $5,000 to $100,000 per unique advertisement (or three times actual damages) but only after filing a State Bar complaint and obtaining a State Bar finding of substantial evidence if the advertiser refuses to withdraw or rebroadcasts the ad.
State Bar complaints must be personally served; advertisers have nine days to voluntarily withdraw the ad; the State Bar must decide on substantial evidence within 21 days; on finding substantial evidence, electronic ads must be withdrawn within 72 hours and other media as soon as practicable (≤30 days).
The statute continues to exclude broadcasters and advertising agencies that merely disseminate or prepare ads from content regulation, potentially shifting primary regulatory burden onto attorneys and referral services.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Private civil action for runner/capper violations
This amendment adds a private right of action for violations of the runner/capper prohibition (Section 6152). Any person may sue for statutory damages between $5,000 and $100,000 per violation or three times actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and equitable relief. The court must consider factors such as seriousness, number of violations, persistence, willfulness, and the defendant’s financial condition when setting damages—giving judges wide discretion to scale awards based on defendant wealth and conduct.
Referral services: certification rules and joint advertising liability
The section retains the certification and operation limits for lawyer referral services (State Bar certification, fee caps, 20% ownership rule) and adds that permissible joint advertising requires each participating lawyer or firm to execute an agreement taking express liability for the ad content. The change preserves referral‑service standards but shifts legal and commercial risk into written contracts for joint advertisers and creates a clearer line of accountability for consumers and regulators.
Private cause of action for unlawful referral activity
This newly added section creates a standalone private remedy for violations of Section 6155 (unlawful referral operations). It mirrors the damages framework used elsewhere in the bill—$5,000 to $100,000 per violation or treble damages—plus fees and injunctions, and instructs courts to weigh similar aggravating and mitigating factors. The section explicitly states that this private right exists independently of governmental enforcement.
New definitions, content bans, and disclosure requirements for advertisements
Section 6157 broadens the definitions of ‘advertise’ and ‘advertisement’ to capture targeted communications. Section 6157.2 adds express prohibitions on misleading or deceptive claims about skills, experience, or track records, and tightens rules on referencing awards—only non‑pay‑to‑play recognitions may be mentioned. It also requires that ads conspicuously state at least one bona fide office city/town/county or the State Bar address; if platform constraints prevent full disclosure in the ad, a clear link to a landing page with full disclosures will suffice. Additionally, contingent-fee statements must disclose potential client responsibility for costs when applicable, and impersonations or dramatizations must be disclosed.
Complaint, State Bar review, and withdrawal timelines; expanded review coverage
SB 37 tightens the complaint process: complainants must personally serve the advertiser; the advertiser then has nine days to voluntarily withdraw the ad pending review. The State Bar must complete an initial substantial‑evidence review within 21 days. If substantial evidence is found, electronic ads must be withdrawn within 72 hours and other media must be removed as soon as practicable but within 30 days after notice. The section expands the State Bar review procedure to apply to joint advertisers who comply with the joint‑advertising subdivision; for other advertisers the statute preserves a 14‑day notice route before direct civil enforcement. The State Bar’s finding is admissible in later civil actions and declaratory relief processes are preserved.
Scope: who the rules apply to and who is excluded
The article’s reach is clarified: it applies broadly to lawyers, licensees, law partnerships, referral services, advertising collectives and cooperatives, and nonlawyers or groups advertising legal availability. However, the bill retains and expands exclusions—advertising media and advertising agencies that merely create ad content (and broadcasters that disseminate the ads) are not subject to the substantive content rules, insulating channels and creative vendors while leaving responsibility with the advertiser and joint advertisers.
Discipline grounds and State Bar investigatory role
SB 37 makes false, misleading, or deceptive advertising conduct an independent basis for State Bar discipline and authorizes the Bar to initiate investigations from complaints filed under the revised procedures. The Bar’s determination is admissible but not dispositive in disciplinary proceedings, preserving judicial review and constitutional defenses while allowing Bar findings to inform enforcement and discipline.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers misled by legal advertising — they gain a clearer path to monetary relief (statutory damages up to $100,000 or treble damages), mandatory disclosures that make it easier to verify an advertiser’s bona fides, and a structured State Bar process to press complaints before suing.
- Competing attorneys who abide by the rules — the expanded prohibitions on deceptive claims and fee‑for‑award recognitions reduce unfair competitive advantages stemming from misleading ads or pay‑to‑play endorsements.
- Law firms that manage compliance proactively — firms that adopt written joint‑advertising agreements and strict ad review processes will better limit liability and may use the new rules to require indemnities from partners and marketing vendors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Advertising attorneys and law firms — they face higher litigation and compliance risk, potential statutory damages per ad, and new contractual obligations to assume liability in joint ads, which may increase insurance and legal costs.
- Certified lawyer referral services and advertising collectives — they must maintain certification standards, ensure nonproprietary award references, and may confront direct private suits and higher operational scrutiny.
- The State Bar — the Bar must personally serve complainants, meet shorter review deadlines, manage expanded caseloads (including joint‑advertiser reviews), and may need more resources to perform timely, substantive evaluations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits stronger consumer protection and accountability—through broader ad definitions, mandatory disclosures, and private statutory remedies—against the risk of chilling legitimate lawyer communications and inflating litigation and compliance costs for attorneys, referral services, and the State Bar; enforcing clear ad standards helps consumers but also centralizes legal and financial risk on advertisers and may capture ordinary, targeted client outreach that was never intended to be regulated as broadcast advertising.
SB 37 tightens consumer protections but introduces several implementation and doctrinal frictions. First, the broadened definition of “advertisement” sweeps targeted digital outreach into the regulatory net—drawing in direct messages, email campaigns, and narrow social‑media placements that historically escaped broadcast‑style regulation.
That raises compliance burdens for everyday client outreach (for example, follow‑up emails or platform‑targeted promos) and will require advertisers to retool targeting, copy, and disclosure strategies.
Second, the bill layers private statutory damages on top of existing civil per‑broadcast penalties and the State Bar process, producing overlapping remedies with different procedural prerequisites. Consumers can only access the higher statutory damages in some circumstances (after a State Bar substantial‑evidence finding or under the new referral/runner statutes), while other private suits remain subject to the older $5,000 per‑broadcast cap.
This creates complexity for plaintiffs and defendants about the proper claim pathway, forum, and damages exposure, and risks duplicative litigation or gamesmanship over which remedy applies.
Third, by excluding broadcasters and advertising agencies from content regulation, the law places enforcement and financial responsibility squarely on attorney advertisers and referral services. That clarifies who regulators will sanction, but may push liability onto smaller firms, solo practitioners, and referral operators, while leaving the channels of dissemination largely untouched.
Finally, the State Bar’s compressed timelines (21‑day review, 72‑hour withdrawal for electronic ads) are administratively demanding; without increased staffing or clear triage rules, the Bar may struggle to apply consistent standards, raising the risk of uneven enforcement and more declaratory relief litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.