Telling a Prospective Client "We Use AI" When You Haven't Figured Out What NJ RPC 7.1 Permits You to Say

Solo and small-firm attorneys in New Jersey are under real pressure to stand out, and AI has become a tempting marketing hook. "We use cutting-edge AI tools." "Our firm uses artificial intelligence to deliver faster results at lower cost." Variations of these lines are already appearing on law firm websites across the state.

The problem is that most attorneys writing that copy haven't thought carefully about whether it's true in the way a prospective client would understand it, and RPC 7.1 doesn't give you much room to be loose with that.

What RPC 7.1 Actually Prohibits

New Jersey RPC 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A statement is misleading if it omits information necessary to make the communication as a whole not materially misleading, even if every individual sentence is technically accurate.

That second part is where AI marketing copy tends to get attorneys into trouble. You can run a client intake form through ChatGPT and truthfully say you "use AI in your practice." But if a prospective client reasonably interprets that claim as meaning you have a sophisticated, integrated AI workflow that cuts their costs by 40% and produces more accurate work product, and that's not what's happening, you have a problem. The statement was true; the impression it created was not.

The NJSBA and the Office of Attorney Ethics have not yet issued a formal opinion specific to AI advertising claims, but the framework under RPC 7.1 and its Comment [2], which addresses communications that create "unjustified expectations," applies cleanly. You don't need a new rule to have a compliance obligation here.

The Three Claims Most Likely to Create Exposure

Efficiency and speed claims. Saying AI makes your firm "faster" is almost certainly fine as a general statement, if it's true for your actual workflow. But "get your contract reviewed in 24 hours using AI" is a specific performance claim that creates an expectation. If you miss that window, or if the AI-assisted review still takes you three days, you've done more than disappoint a client. You've made a statement that may not have been accurate when you made it.

Cost savings claims. This is the most dangerous category. "AI lets us offer lower fees" sounds compelling but requires you to have actually benchmarked your fees against what you would have charged without AI assistance. If you haven't done that analysis, you're speculating on your own marketing page. Under RPC 1.5 and RPC 7.1 read together, fee-related marketing claims need to be something you can actually defend.

Capability claims about the AI itself. Phrases like "our AI reviews contracts for legal risks" or "AI-powered legal research" imply that the AI is doing substantive legal analysis. The New Jersey courts and bar have not sanctioned AI as an autonomous legal actor, and for good reason. What you're actually doing is using an AI tool to assist your analysis. That distinction matters if a client later claims they hired you based on a belief that your technology, rather than your judgment, was driving the work product.

What You Can Say, and How to Say It

The safest framing keeps the attorney clearly in the center of the sentence. Compare these:

"We use AI tools to help us work more efficiently" is accurate and non-specific enough to be defensible.

"Our AI delivers faster, more accurate legal research than traditional methods" is a comparative claim that requires evidence you almost certainly don't have.

If you want to be more specific and specific is better for SEO, describe the actual use case: "We use AI-assisted document review to help identify issues in contracts more quickly, with attorney review at every step." That's honest, it's informative, and it manages client expectations rather than inflating them.

Some attorneys are also starting to include a brief AI disclosure section on their website's "How We Work" or FAQ page. This is a smart move for two reasons: it satisfies any disclosure obligation that might eventually be formalized under the NJ RPCs, and it demonstrates transparency that builds client trust, particularly for clients who are skeptical of AI in professional services.

A Practical Drafting Checklist Before You Publish

Before any AI-related claim goes live on your site or in a retainer agreement, run it through four questions:

1. Is this statement true for my actual, current workflow, not a workflow I'm planning to build?
2. Would a reasonable prospective client interpret this as a guarantee or a performance promise?
3. Am I implying the AI is doing something that I, as the attorney, am actually doing?
4. If a client complained to the OAE that this statement was misleading, could I explain exactly what I meant and why it was accurate?

If any answer gives you pause, rewrite before you publish.

The NJ bar hasn't made AI advertising a formal enforcement priority yet. But RPC 7.1 complaints are inexpensive for clients to file, and "we were just excited about our tools" is not a defense the Office of Attorney Ethics is likely to find persuasive.