Quebec’s testimonial ban versus the review signals AI engines rely on

What does article 145 actually prohibit?

Article 145 of the Code de déontologie des avocats says that a lawyer may not, in advertising, use or permit the use of a testimonial of support or recognition concerning the lawyer. The French text reads “un témoignage d’appui ou de reconnaissance.” The ban has no conditions attached, unlike Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, which allow testimonials that are genuine, consented and not misleading.

The Barreau du Québec restated the rule in a notice to members on April 2, 2024 about conduct on social networks. That notice goes further than the article’s text on two practical points. It tells lawyers not to solicit client testimonials on social networks or on a professional web page. And it says that if a testimonial of support or recognition concerning the lawyer appears, the lawyer must take the necessary steps to remove it diligently. CBA National reported in January 2020 that the Barreau had applied the rule to client comments in a Facebook page’s review section, with removal or closing the section as the remedy.

Why do AI engines care about reviews at all?

AI engines use reviews to decide which local businesses are eligible to be recommended, not as a ranking score. SOCi’s 2026 Local Visibility Index, which covered 2,751 brands and about 350,000 locations, found ChatGPT recommended 1.2% of locations, Perplexity 7.4% and Gemini 11%, against 35.9% appearing in Google’s local three-pack. The locations ChatGPT did recommend averaged 4.3 stars.

Reviews also reach answers indirectly. In Citorian’s June 2026 five-engine test of 359 personal injury answers, Google properties carried 12% of the sources the engines cited, which is where Google Business Profile ratings enter. Those are American figures. No published study has measured how engines treat review counts for Quebec firms, so a Quebec firm should read them as the mechanism, not as a Quebec benchmark.

Which review tactics does article 145 take off the table in Quebec?

Most of the review tactics in American and Ontario AI visibility playbooks are out in Quebec: asking clients for reviews, republishing reviews on the firm’s website, embedding a star-rating widget, and displaying LinkedIn recommendations. What remains is the firm’s conduct toward reviews that appear without solicitation, and the independent third-party sources the rule does not reach.

Does a Quebec firm lose to firms that can collect reviews?

Mostly not, because the firms it competes with are bound by the same rule. A family lawyer in Laval is compared by an engine with other Quebec lawyers, all under article 145, so a thin review record is the local norm, not a gap against the competition. The disadvantage appears where Quebec firms compete with firms outside Quebec, and in engines that weigh review volume across a mixed candidate list.

The practical question in Quebec is Google Business Profile. A Facebook page lets its owner close the review section, which is the remedy CBA National described. Google Business Profile has no owner setting that switches reviews off, and Google removes reviews only for breaking its own content policies. What “the necessary steps” means for a Google profile that collects unprompted reviews is a question the firm’s ethics counsel, or the Barreau du Québec, should answer before any AI visibility work touches the profile.

What does a Quebec firm build instead of a review programme?

A Quebec firm builds the corroboration that independent third parties publish, plus French-language answer pages that engines can quote. Article 145 limits what the lawyer publishes about the lawyer. It does not limit a court decision on SOQUIJ or CanLII, a peer ranking decided by Best Lawyers in Canada or Lexpert, or a firm page that answers a legal question accurately in French. Firm AEO works in this order, and the timing below is typical, not promised:

• •1. Entity consistency first: the same firm name, address and lawyer names on the Barreau du Québec member directory, Google Business Profile and the firm’s site. Typically two to four weeks.
• •2. Third-party peer and editorial sources: Best Lawyers in Canada, Lexpert, Chambers Canada for commercial practices, and Quebec legal press. These are decided by the publisher, not the firm, which is why they fit inside article 145.
• •3. Public record: reported decisions on CanLII and SOQUIJ that name counsel. The firm does not write these, but it can make sure its site uses the same lawyer names the decisions use.
• •4. French-language answer pages, one per sub-practice, each opening with a direct answer and a Quebec-specific fact such as the relevant délai de prescription. Quebec prompts asked in French retrieve French pages, and few Quebec firms publish them in extractable form.
• •5. Public legal information: the Barreau’s own notice directs the public toward trusted sites such as Éducaloi. Lawyers who contribute to recognised public legal education earn a mention on a page an engine already trusts.

What should a Quebec firm measure instead of review count?

A Quebec firm should measure whether engines name it for Quebec prompts asked in French and in English, and which sources the engines cite when they do. Review count is a poor metric under article 145 because the firm cannot legitimately grow it. Share of answers and cited-source mix both move with the corroboration work above, so they show whether that work is reaching the engines.

Run the firm’s top ten client questions in both languages across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, three logged-out runs each, and log whether the firm is named, which competitor is named, and every cited URL. Clio’s 2025 Legal Trends Report found that 28% of consumers who used AI for a legal question were directed to contact a lawyer, so the naming moment is narrow in every province. In Quebec, the cited-URL column is the useful one: it shows which third-party sources the engines trust for Quebec, and that list becomes the work order.