CBA Record July-August 2026

Obviously, context matters. Claims of experience, for instance, may be mislead ing if they imply a level of specialization or recent activity that no longer exists. Similarly, a headshot that freezes a law yer’s former professional identity can mis lead just as much as an inflated résumé. Social media compounds the issue. Lawyers reuse the same headshot across firm websites, LinkedIn profiles, bar direc tories, CLE bios, and speaker announce ments. Over time, the image departs from who the attorney really is while continu ing to function as a representation of the lawyer in professional markets. The broader and more persistent the dissemi nation, the stronger the argument that the communication is “about the lawyer’s services” within the meaning of Rule 7.1. Of course, not every old photograph vio lates the Rules. The standard is not perfec tion or constant updating. It is materiality and reasonableness. A modestly dated but accurate likeness is unlikely to mislead. A materially outdated image that conveys a different stage of life or practice may. The safest course is simple. Lawyers should treat headshots as substantive con tent. They should ask whether the image fairly represents who they are and how they practice today. If the answer is no— or if the image would likely cause a rea sonable person to draw conclusions that are no longer true—updating it is not just good marketing hygiene. It is professional responsibility. Attorney advertising rules are ulti mately about protecting the public from deception, subtle or otherwise. When first impressions are increasingly visual, compliance with Rule 7.1 requires law yers to think carefully about what their images say, especially when those images no longer do so honestly. Standard of Materiality and Reasonableness

Is Failing to Update Your Law Firm Headshot False or Misleading? T oday, image matters more than ever. Whether on Zoom, TikTok, or LinkedIn, digital encounters dominate our interactions with clients, friends, and strangers. These encounters also constitute advertising. In Illinois, Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct governs attorney advertis ing, including online representations. The Rule itself is simple enough: A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact necessary to make the statement—when considered holistically— not materially misleading. The Rule’s Comment [2] explains that truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited: “A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer.” This makes sense: The public does not want attorneys misrepresenting themselves when advertising. But misrepresentation does not lie just in textual bait-and-switches. Instead, the Rule governs facts about the attorney themselves. One underappreciated risk lies in something many lawyers treat as benign or even trivial: the attorney headshot. Headshots as Affirmative Communications A headshot is not decorative filler. It is an affirmative communication about the lawyer. A reasonable viewer understands a headshot to depict the lawyer as they appear. When a lawyer uses a photograph that is materially outdated—because of age, health, or other significant changes in appearance—the image risks conveying a false impression about the lawyer’s present identity, availability, or professional status. This is why Illinois asks whether there is a substantial likelihood that the photo will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific, and misleading, conclusion about the lawyer. An outdated headshot can do precisely that. A photograph taken 20 years earlier may suggest youth, vigor, or a stage of practice that no longer corresponds to reality. It may imply that the lawyer is actively practicing in the same way, at the same capacity, or with the same physical or cognitive abilities as when the photo was taken. While we all like to think we’re being hired on a meritocratic basis, for some practice areas—for example, criminal defense, personal injury, and other trial-heavy practices—appearances may be material to a prospective client’s decision-making. Images communicate facts. And under Rule 7.1, omissions can be just as misleading as affirmative misstatements. When a lawyer displays a headshot that no longer reflects reality, such a representation, by definition, is misleading about the attorney. Trisha Rich is taking a hiatus from writing the Practical Ethics column during her tenure as CBA President. Over the 2026–2027 bar year, the column is featuring guest authors with expertise in legal ethics who have volunteered to wield the pen in her absence. PRACTICAL ETHICS BY LEONARD C. BRAHIN

Leonard C. Brahin is a litigation and legal service transactions attorney in +ROODQG .QLJKW·V &KLFDJR RIÀFH KLV SUDFWLFH includes advising attorneys on legal ethics matters.

50 July/August 2026