Lawyers get sued under the TCPA too. A firm that texts prospective clients about a mass tort is a seller of services under the FCC’s rules, and a firm that buys leads may be treated as one if the calls were made on its behalf. California lawyers also answer to the state’s solicitation rule. The two regimes overlap, and a firm whose intake records satisfy one usually has most of what it needs for the other.
Is a law firm’s marketing text a telephone solicitation?
Usually, yes. Legal services are services, and a message encouraging someone to hire a firm is marketing.
The FCC’s rules define a telephone solicitation as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15). A text asking whether someone used a recalled product and inviting them to check whether they qualify fits. A call to a former client can qualify too, unless it falls within the established business relationship exclusion. A message about an existing client’s matter, such as a hearing reminder, is a client communication and usually isn’t a solicitation.
Whether a text is a “call” for a private Do Not Call suit is disputed in federal courts. The California district courts that have ruled since July treated texts as calls, so a California firm should assume its marketing texts are covered.
When can a firm text a lead whose number is on the Do Not Call Registry?
With that person’s permission, or within an established business relationship that hasn’t ended.
The Registry rule bars telephone solicitations to a “residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,” under § 64.1200(c)(2). The definition of telephone solicitation excludes messages sent with “prior express invitation or permission” and messages to a person with an established business relationship. Permission for Registry purposes must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement that includes the number, under § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii), while the established business relationship needs no writing. The rule also excuses a Registry call that results from error if, as part of its routine business practice, the seller has written Do Not Call procedures, trains its staff on them, keeps an internal do-not-call list, and uses a Registry version obtained “no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made,” under § 64.1200(c)(2)(i). The seller must also keep records documenting that process and must not use the Registry data for any other purpose. That is why the Registry version date belongs in the file.
For a firm, an intake inquiry creates an inquiry-based relationship that lasts only three months. A former client is covered for 18 months after the last transaction. A lead who called about a car accident in January and never signed is outside the window by May. Any later marketing text to that person’s Registry-listed number needs that person’s permission.
The firm’s post on Do Not Call lawsuit defenses covers the defenses that apply once a claim is filed.
What does California’s solicitation rule add?
A separate set of limits on live and real-time contact, and on contacting people who don’t want to hear from the lawyer.
California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3(a) provides that a lawyer “shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain,” unless the person is a lawyer or has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer. Rule 7.3(b) bars solicitation by any means if the person has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer, or if the solicitation “is transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress or harassment.”
Comment 1 to Rule 7.3 says a communication isn’t a solicitation if it’s “in response to a request for information or is automatically generated in response to Internet searches.” That matters for intake. A reply to someone who filled out a contact form is in a different position than a cold call to a purchased list. A firm that keeps the inquiry record for every outbound contact has a better answer under both the TCPA and Rule 7.3.
The rule also reaches past live calls. Rule 7.3(c) requires written, recorded, or electronic solicitations sent to a person known to need legal services in a particular matter to carry the word “Advertisement” or similar words on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and end of a recorded or electronic message, unless an exception applies or the advertising nature is apparent from context. A mass tort text to someone the lawyer knows needs legal help in that matter falls within the rule’s terms. Firms that run text campaigns should build that label into the template instead of leaving it to whoever drafts the message.
Rule 7.3 is enforced through State Bar discipline, not through private damages suits, so a firm defending a TCPA claim over intake marketing should consider both.
Who is responsible for a lead vendor’s calls?
Plaintiffs usually name the firm whose name appears in the call. Liability depends on agency, and the vendor’s payment terms raise a separate question.
The TCPA’s Do Not Call private right of action in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) belongs to a person who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” so calls a vendor places for a firm can count. When a lead generator places calls and transfers leads to a firm, a plaintiff will usually name the firm that signed the case. Whether the firm is liable generally depends on agency, including how much control the firm had over the campaign and whether it approved the scripts.
California firms also have to watch how they pay for leads. Rule 7.2(b) bars a lawyer from giving “anything of value to a person” for recommending or securing the lawyer’s services, with exceptions that include paying the reasonable costs of permitted advertising, and Comment 3 to the rule allows paying vendors engaged to provide marketing or client-development services. How a lead vendor is paid can matter under that rule, separate from the TCPA. The firm’s post on buying leads and TCPA consent records covers the gaps that can make lead-vendor consent a weak point.
| Practice | TCPA and FCC rule | California rule | Records that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketing texts to Registry-listed numbers | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) | Rule 7.3(b) if the person asked not to be contacted | Inquiry dates, permission records, Registry scrub logs |
| Live cold calls to prospective clients | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), (d) | Rule 7.3(a) | Call logs and the basis for each contact |
| Texts after STOP | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), (d)(3) | Rule 7.3(b)(1) | Opt-out logs with timestamps |
| Calls by a lead vendor | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) (“on behalf of”) | Rule 7.2(b) on payment terms | Vendor contracts and the consent records behind the leads |
TCPA damages are per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227 allows up to $500 per violation, or the actual loss if greater, for Do Not Call claims, and $500 per violation or the actual loss, whichever is greater, for claims over prerecorded or artificial-voice calls. A court may increase either up to three times the amount if the violation was willful or knowing. A Do Not Call plaintiff must also have received more than one violating call within 12 months, and the statute gives an affirmative defense to a business that “has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.”
What to pull when a firm is sued over intake marketing
A law firm defending a TCPA claim has the same records problem as any other business, plus privilege questions about intake files. For how these cases are usually defended, see the firm’s page for California TCPA defense lawyers.
- Hold the texting platform and dialer logs, intake-system entries, and the consent record for the claimant’s number.
- Export opt-out replies and the firm’s internal do-not-call list, with dates.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and the Registry versions each campaign used.
- Gather lead-vendor and call-center agreements, plus the scripts and any prerecorded or AI-voice audio.
- Have outside counsel review the claim before anyone at the firm contacts the claimant or discusses resolution.
Intake records can include privileged or confidential information from prospective clients. Plan the litigation hold and any production around that before documents leave the firm.
Questions law firms ask about TCPA marketing
Can a law firm text someone who filled out a website form?
Usually, if the form asked for permission to text that number about the person’s inquiry and the firm kept the record. The permission is strongest when it names the firm. A text months later about an unrelated case type stands on weaker ground and is weaker still if the number is on the Registry.
Are texts to existing clients covered by the TCPA?
Messages about a client’s matter are client communications and usually aren’t telephone solicitations. A promotional text to a current client usually falls within the established business relationship exclusion, but that ends if the client asks the firm to stop. Keep matter updates separate from promotions, and honor any opt-out on the marketing side.
Does a lead vendor’s consent language protect the firm?
Only if it actually covers the firm. Consent language that names a long list of partners or doesn’t identify the firm can be a weak point in litigation. Firms should ask vendors for the consent record behind a sample of leads before relying on them.
Does a firm’s practice area change how the TCPA applies?
No. The statute applies to a firm’s own marketing calls and texts the same way it applies to any other business, whatever kinds of cases the firm handles. Intake teams should follow the same consent and opt-out practices as any other seller, and keep the records that show it.
When a law firm is the TCPA defendant
If your firm has been sued over marketing texts or lead-vendor calls, the intake records and the vendor’s consent trail usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving law firm intake marketing. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2 and 7.3 are published by the State Bar in Chapter 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of November 6, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.