Can lawyers text clients? A checklist for automated texts

Your clients already text you. The harder question is what happens when software texts for you: a missed-call reply, a reminder, a "we got your inquiry" note.

Short answer: the ABA Model Rules don't ban texting clients, and a reply to someone who contacted you first is generally not a solicitation. The trouble spots are confidentiality on the client's phone, prospective clients who start describing their case by text, and unsolicited texts to strangers. That last one is where states split. Below is what the primary sources say, grouped by who's on the other end, followed by a checklist.

Not legal advice. We build and test automations; we're not lawyers. This is a plain-English summary of primary sources, checked on October 27, 2026. Your state's version of the rules controls, and several states differ from the ABA Model Rules on exactly this topic. Ask your state bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure.

Texting existing clients

The rules don't pick a channel. Model Rule 1.4 requires you to keep clients reasonably informed and respond to reasonable requests. Comment 4 says that when a prompt response isn't feasible, "the lawyer, or a member of the lawyer's staff, acknowledge receipt of the request and advise the client when a response may be expected." An automated "we got your call, we'll call back this afternoon" fits that description. The New Hampshire Bar's Ethics Corner makes the same point in Lawyers & Texting: Part I: "the rule specifies no particular method of communication."

Confidentiality is the real risk. Rule 1.6(c) requires "reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure" of client information. The ABA Litigation Section's article on texting clients lists the usual ways that fails:

• message previews on a lock screen
• texts that sync to a shared tablet or laptop
• a phone that a spouse or child also uses

The NH Bar article suggests confirming only the client has access to the device and turning off previews. For an automated text, the simplest fix is to keep it content-free. Say "this is the firm, we'll call you", never "about your DUI hearing".

Keep texts to logistics. Both articles treat texting as fine for scheduling and acknowledgments. The ABA Litigation article says engagement letters and settlement discussions shouldn't happen by text. The NH Bar suggests limiting texting to "scheduling and confirming appointments" and notes that "text messages are part of the client's file". If automated texts go out, keep a copy in the matter. Our missed-call recipe logs the call on the Clio matter when there's exactly one open matter; the inquiry recipe doesn't log anything to a matter.

Put it in the engagement letter. The ABA Litigation article recommends telling clients up front how you'll use texting and asking about their preferences.

Texting prospective clients who contacted you

This is a missed-call reply or a reply to a web form. Two rules matter.

Solicitation (Rule 7.3). Rule 7.3(a) defines a solicitation as a communication "initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm." Comment 1 says a communication is not a solicitation "if it is in response to a request for information or is automatically generated in response to electronic searches." A reply to someone who called or wrote to you is generally treated as a response.

Florida, which has some of the most detailed lawyer-advertising rules, reaches the same place by a different route. Its Rule 4-7.18(b)(3) says the written-solicitation requirements "do not apply to communications between lawyers and their own current and former clients... or to communications by the lawyer at a prospective client's request" (unofficial copy). Rule 4-7.20 exempts "a written or recorded communication requested by a prospective client" from the filing requirement (unofficial copy).

One open question we can't settle: is a missed call with no voicemail a "request"? The caller plainly wanted to reach you, but no rule we read addresses a silent missed call directly. The conservative approach is to send exactly one reply, then stop.

Prospective-client duties (Rule 1.18). Rule 1.18 protects what a prospective client tells you, even if you never take the case. That information can disqualify you from representing someone on the other side. Comment 2 says a consultation is likely to have occurred if a lawyer "specifically requests or invites the submission of information about a potential representation without clear and reasonably understandable warnings and cautionary statements that limit the lawyer's obligations." So an automated text shouldn't ask "tell us about your case." It should point to an intake process that collects only what you need to run conflicts. Comment 4 says to limit initial information to what "reasonably appears necessary". The text should also say not to send case details yet.

Unsolicited texts to people who didn't contact you

Here the states diverge, and this is the one area where we'd suggest not automating at all without your bar's guidance.

• ABA Model Rules. Rule 7.3(b) bans live person-to-person solicitation for pecuniary gain, with exceptions for other lawyers, people with a family, close personal or prior professional relationship, and people who routinely use that type of legal service for business. The ABA comment says live contact "does not include chat rooms, text messages or other written communications that recipients may easily disregard." Under the Model Rules, a text is a written communication. It's still an advertisement, though, so Rule 7.1 (not misleading) and Rule 7.2(d) apply. Rule 7.2(d) requires "the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content."
• Pennsylvania. Since November 14, 2024, Pennsylvania's Rule 7.3 Comment 2 says live person-to-person contact "includes text messages". That puts an unsolicited text in the same bucket as an in-person pitch. Micah Buchdahl's ABA Law Practice Today article reports that in Text Ads & Marketing, LLC v. Rafferty a federal judge declined to halt the text prohibition. That was as of December 2024; we haven't checked later developments. Buchdahl also says he disagrees with Pennsylvania's reading. Pennsylvania's Comment 1 keeps the "in response to a request for information" exception, so replies are treated differently from cold texts.
• Florida. The Florida Bar's checklist for email, text and targeted social media says a text-message advertisement must start with the word "Advertisement", must include an opt-out, and must contain all required information in the text itself. That includes the name of a responsible lawyer or firm and the city of a bona fide office. Florida also requires filing many ads (Rule 4-7.19).

Vendors count too. ABA Formal Opinion 501 says a lawyer's responsibility for solicitation can reach people the lawyer employs or retains, and it names marketing firms. A texting vendor doesn't move the responsibility off you.

Federal texting law (TCPA) and carrier rules

Bar rules are only half of it. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the FCC treats texts as calls. The FCC's opt-out rule, 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10), lets people revoke consent "by using any reasonable method", including replying "stop" or other words a reasonable person would read as an opt-out. Revocations must be honored within 10 business days, and the rule allows one confirmation text. Statutory damages are $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). US carriers also require A2P 10DLC registration to text from a local number.

We covered all of this, including the FCC opt-out rule change published October 26, 2026, in Is missed-call text-back legal?. It was written with trades in mind, but the federal texting rules don't change for law firms.

If you text people in Canada

Canada's anti-spam law, CASL, covers commercial texts sent to Canadian numbers. The Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations, section 3(b), exclude a message "sent in response to a request, inquiry or complaint or is otherwise solicited by the person to whom the message is sent" from CASL's consent and content rules. Whether a silent missed call counts as an "inquiry" isn't something we found addressed. Including your firm name and a working STOP costs nothing, and the CASL text requires both for messages that aren't excluded.

Canadian lawyers also answer to their law society. Ontario's Rule 4.2-1, for example, says marketing must be "demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable." Our recipes are built and documented for US firms and Clio's US region; they haven't been set up or tested for Canada.

The checklist

Before you turn on any automated text from your firm:

1. Who receives it? A client, someone who contacted you, or a stranger? Don't automate the third without your bar's guidance.
2. One reply, not a sequence. Automated follow-ups to people who didn't respond start to look like advertising.
3. Firm name and a callback number in every text. In Florida, if there's any chance the text is an ad, start it with "Advertisement" and include the responsible lawyer or firm, an office city and an opt-out.
4. No case details, ever. Assume someone else can read the lock screen.
5. Tell prospects not to send facts yet. Point them to an intake form built for conflict checks.
6. Say no attorney-client relationship exists yet before you invite any information.
7. STOP works, and so does "please stop texting me". Send one confirmation, then nothing.
8. No bot answers. Replies go to a person.
9. Keep a copy in the client file.
10. Mention texting in your engagement letter.
11. Check your own state's Rule 7.3 and its comments. Pennsylvania shows how far a state can move from the ABA version.

How our recipes handle this, and what they don't

Both of our law-firm messaging recipes were built against that list:

• Missed-call text-back:
  • sends one content-free text per caller per 12 hours
  • names the firm, ends with "Reply STOP to opt out", and handles plain-English opt-outs
  • forwards every reply to the attorney and never answers on its own
  • tells new callers not to text case details
• Inquiry auto-reply and intake:
  • says contacting the firm "does not create an attorney-client relationship"
  • asks for no confidential details by email
  • declines practice areas you don't handle and points to the bar referral service

Status: both are "Verified with mocks". Each passed 10 of 10 test scenarios on October 27, 2026, in n8n. Clio, Twilio, Calendly and the email sender were replaced by a local mock server built from their official API docs. Nothing was sent to a real phone or person, and neither recipe has run against a live account.

What they don't do:

• Neither runs a conflict check.
• The missed-call recipe doesn't yet validate Twilio's request signature.
• Neither is built for Canada.
• Neither makes a text compliant in your state. The wording and the decision to send are yours.

More detail is in our missed-call post for law firms and our post on replying to web inquiries. Everything we've built for firms is on the law firms page.

Sources

All checked October 27, 2026.

• American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.4 comment, Rule 1.6, Rule 1.18 and comment, Rule 7.3 and comment, Rule 7.2.
• ABA, news release on Formal Opinion 501 (April 13, 2022).
• Philip George, Considerations for Communicating with Clients via Text Message, ABA Section of Litigation, January 27, 2023.
• New Hampshire Bar Association, Lawyers & Texting: Part I. State bar ethics column.
• Pennsylvania Code, 204 Pa. Code Rule 7.3 and comments.
• Micah U. Buchdahl, Can Texting Be Improper Solicitation?, ABA Law Practice Today, December 16, 2024.
• The Florida Bar, Checklist: email, text and targeted social media advertisements (official).
• Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-7.18 and Rule 4-7.20. Unofficial copies; check against the Florida Bar's published rules.
• eCFR, 47 CFR 64.1200; Cornell LII, 47 U.S.C. § 227; Federal Register, FCC order of October 26, 2026.
• Justice Laws Website (Canada), CASL and Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations, SOR/2013-221.
• Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Chapter 4.