The SRA Code of Conduct applies to everything a law firm publishes, including the website, blog content, marketing emails, social posts, and — increasingly — AI-generated content the firm has not directly created. Most firms run their marketing without checking against the Code. Most marketing agencies running law firm work have no specific Code knowledge.
The October 2024 update added explicit AI guidance. The 2026 regulatory interpretation has tightened in three areas. Firms that have not reviewed their website against the current position should do so soon.
The principles that apply to web content
Three principles dominate. Honesty (Principle 4): the firm must act with honesty. Integrity (Principle 5): the firm must act with integrity. Public confidence (Principle 2): the firm must act in a way that maintains public trust in the profession.
Each one has direct implications for what firm websites can and cannot say. Claims about success rates, specialist credentials, comparative advantage, and pricing are all areas where these principles bite.
Rule 8.8 and the publication of solicitor details
Rule 8.8 requires firms to publish specific information about regulated services, including the identity of the solicitor responsible. Most firm websites comply formally (the SRA registration number is in the footer) but miss the spirit (named solicitors on practice area pages, named authors on content, named partners responsible for specific practice areas).
For AI search optimisation, the Rule 8.8 alignment is helpful: AI assistants want named, credentialled solicitors, which is exactly what Rule 8.8 expects you to publish.
The Transparency Rules
The SRA Transparency Rules require firms to publish prices and service information for specific practice areas: residential conveyancing, probate, immigration, employment, debt recovery, and licensing for the consumer.
Most firms comply formally with a generic price page. Few firms have used the Transparency Rules as a content opportunity. The rules require substantive disclosure; the substantive disclosure can be SEO content if structured well. Firms that publish detailed, accurate, helpful price and service content out-rank competitors with bare-minimum compliance pages.
The 2024 AI guidance
The October 2024 SRA guidance on AI made three things explicit. First, firms remain responsible for content generated using AI tools. Second, AI-generated client-facing content must be reviewed by a solicitor before publication. Third, claims and statements made via AI assistants (where the firm has provided information that AI assistants are using) must be accurate.
The practical implication: firms cannot use AI to generate practice area content unchecked, and firms whose websites contain inaccurate claims that AI assistants then reproduce are responsible for the resulting inaccuracy in AI outputs.
Three SRA enforcement actions in early 2026
Three SRA enforcement actions against firms for marketing-related issues in the first half of 2026 have established the practical interpretation. The issues were: unsupported claims about success rates, comparison advertising that did not properly substantiate the comparison, and pricing information that materially misled prospective clients.
None of these were edge cases. All three were practices common across UK legal marketing. The enforcement actions have made the regulatory interpretation visible.
What this means for content practice
Practical guidance. Avoid unqualified success-rate claims. Substantiate any comparison. Make pricing claims that survive challenge. Name solicitors on substantive content. Date content visibly. Maintain a clear distinction between solicitor-authored guidance and informational content.
These practices align with AI search optimisation. Named authors, dated content, substantive claims with evidence — these are the signals AI assistants reward. The compliance position and the visibility position move together.
What this means for partners
The compliance pressure on legal marketing is tightening, not loosening. AI accelerates the tightening because regulators are increasingly aware that firms are operating across AI surfaces they do not fully control.
Firms that align SEO and AI work with SRA compliance from the outset produce content that is both visible and defensible. Firms that treat compliance as an afterthought to marketing run growing regulatory risk.
If you would like an audit of your firm is current website against current SRA interpretation, the SRA-Compliant AI Visibility Audit includes a Code compliance review. Or book an intro call for a direct conversation.
