Does Ontario's Rule 3.02 apply to AI-answer content your firm publishes?

Is Rule 3.02 still the Ontario marketing rule?

No, but its substance survived. The Law Society of Ontario, then the Law Society of Upper Canada, replaced its 2000 rules with Model Code numbering in October 2014. Old Rule 3.02(1) defined marketing and Rule 3.02(2) set the three-part test. Both texts now appear almost word for word at Rules 4.2-0 and 4.2-1, and the commentary has grown since.

The renumbering matters for AI visibility in a small way. Marketing articles, vendor pages and some engine answers still cite Rule 3.02, so a firm checking its own pages against the old number will miss commentary added after 2014. The comparison below is drawn from the archived pre-2014 rule and the current LSO text.

Does Rule 4.2-1 cover FAQ and answer content, or only advertisements?

Rule 4.2-0 says marketing includes advertisements and other similar communications in various media, plus firm names, letterhead, business cards and logos. The word includes signals the list is not closed. Whether a general legal-information page counts as marketing is a question for the firm's ethics counsel or the LSO practice management helpline, not for a marketing vendor.

Firm AEO's working assumption is cautious. A page that carries the firm's name, describes its services and invites contact is drafted to the Rule 4.2-1 standard, including FAQ pages and practice-area answer blocks. The demand side explains why this content is worth getting right: Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report, covered by Canadian Lawyer, found more than half of consumers have used or would consider using AI to answer a legal question.

Why does AI extraction make the rule harder to meet?

Because the engine quotes a sentence, not the page. Pew Research Center's July 2025 study of 68,879 Google searches found users clicked a link inside the AI summary in only 1% of visits. A disclaimer in a footer, or two paragraphs below a result figure, is invisible to almost everyone who reads the extracted answer.

Ahrefs found in March 2026 that only about 38% of pages cited in Google AI Overviews rank in the top ten organic results. Any indexed page can be the one quoted, including an old blog post nobody has reviewed since it was written. The current Ontario commentary already asks for particular care in mass advertising, where there is little opportunity for reflection or context. Firm AEO reads an AI answer as the extreme case of that setting. That is an analogy, not a ruling.

Which answer-content patterns does the Ontario rule put at risk?

Most problems come from sentences that were acceptable inside a full page and become something else when quoted alone. The table pairs common AI-answer patterns with the rule text they touch and an illustrative safer draft. Each line is a drafting suggestion for counsel to review, not a determination that the original breaches the rule.

Can an Ontario firm still put statistics in answer content?

Yes, if they are true and verifiable. The Princeton generative engine optimization study (Aggarwal et al., KDD 2024) found that adding statistics raised visibility in generative engine answers by roughly 22% to 41%. Third-party figures with a named source fit Rule 4.2-1(a) naturally, since demonstrably verifiable is the test.

The firm's own results are different. Commentary [2](a) treats an amount recovered or a success rate as potentially contravening the rule unless accompanied by a statement that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. In extractable content, Firm AEO keeps that statement inside the same sentence as the figure, so no engine can quote one without the other.

How should an Ontario firm review answer content before it goes live?

Review each answer as if it were the only sentence a prospective client will ever see. The order below is the one Firm AEO uses for Ontario clients. Timings vary by page count, and every flagged item goes to the firm's ethics counsel, who makes the decision.

• •1. Replace any internal reference to Rule 3.02 with Rule 4.2-1 so reviewers read the current commentary.
• •2. Read every answer block and FAQ answer in isolation, with the heading, and nothing else on the page.
• •3. Flag any amount, success rate or case outcome that lacks the results-vary statement in the same sentence.
• •4. Flag best, top, leading, #1, super and similar words, including in headings phrased as user questions.
• •5. Check every award or ranking against Commentary [5]: genuine, evaluative, not paid for, and verifiable at the time of reference.
• •6. Confirm the page identifies the author as a licensed lawyer, which Rule 4.2-1.1 requires in all marketing materials.
• •7. Check AI-drafted text for facts the firm cannot verify, because demonstrably true applies to every sentence regardless of who or what wrote it.

Does the same test apply outside Ontario?

Largely, with provincial differences. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada Model Code uses the same demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable standard at Rule 4.2-1, and most provinces built on it. The Law Society of British Columbia sets its own wording at Rule 4.2-5, and Quebec's Code of ethics of advocates bans testimonials outright under article 145.

A firm with offices in more than one province should run the review above against each law society's text. Firm AEO's Canadian rules guide lists the provincial differences in one table, and the firm's counsel in each province makes the final determination.