By Tarun Kapoor, Founder · Published October 16, 2026 · Statute text checked against the official California legislative record
Not legal advice. This is general information, not legal advice; confirm with your own counsel or the State Bar of California’s Ethics Hotline. We sell MVA leads, so read what follows with that in mind.
What SB 37 does
California SB 37 (Chapter 645, Statutes of 2025), in force since January 1, 2026, requires legal advertisements subject to the State Bar Act — including ads run by non-lawyers — to name a responsible California lawyer, law firm, certified lawyer referral service, or joint advertiser, and to state the city, town, or county of a bona fide office or the State Bar address of record. It also lets any person sue cappers and uncertified referral services for $5,000–$100,000 per violation.
Senate Bill 37, by Senator Thomas Umberg, was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2025 and chaptered as Chapter 645 of the Statutes of 2025. It amends Business and Professions Code §§ 6153, 6155, 6157, 6157.2, 6158.4, 6158.5 and 6158.7, and adds § 6156.5. The changes, section by section:
- Private suits against cappers (§ 6153(c)–(e)). Any person may now sue over a violation of § 6152(a), which makes it unlawful to act as a runner or capper for attorneys, or to solicit business for them, in hospitals, jails, public places or “upon private property of any character whatsoever.” The remedy is statutory damages of $5,000 to $100,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is larger, plus attorney’s fees and injunctive or declaratory relief.
- Private suits over referral services (§ 6156.5, new). The same remedies are open to any person for a violation of § 6155, the section that requires a referral service to be certified by the State Bar and says no attorney shall accept a referral from one that is not.
- A liability term for joint advertising (§ 6155(g)(1)(B)). Attorneys may still advertise jointly, but each participating attorney or firm must sign a joint advertising agreement with the entity managing the advertising, under which the firm “expressly takes liability for the content of the advertising.”
- A wider definition of advertisement (§ 6157(b)). The old definition covered television, radio, print and mass mailings paid for by or on behalf of an attorney. The new one covers any written, recorded or electronic communication, to the public or to a limited group, that gives information about a lawyer or their services to encourage people to hire them.
- Two new content bans (§ 6157.2(a)(5)–(6)). No misleading, deceptive or false statements about a lawyer’s or firm’s skills, experience or record, and no references to awards or recognition unless the award is not conferred by virtue of membership and the organization charges or solicits no fee for it.
- Two mandatory disclosures (§ 6157.2(b)). An advertisement subject to the State Bar Act must display conspicuously, or state intelligibly if spoken, the name of at least one California-licensed lawyer, the law firm, the certified lawyer referral service, or the joint advertiser together with each participating lawyer or firm. It must also give the city, town or county of at least one bona fide office, or the address of record with the State Bar. A joint ad on a platform with character or time limits complies if it names the joint advertiser and links clearly to a landing page that carries the full disclosures.
- A consumer cause of action (§ 6157.2(c)). A consumer misled by a non-compliant ad may sue for $5,000 to $100,000 per unique advertisement, or three times actual damages, but only after filing a State Bar complaint, the State Bar finding substantial evidence of a violation, and the advertiser failing to withdraw the ad or running it again.
- Procedure, scope and discipline (§§ 6158.4, 6158.5, 6158.7). A copy of a State Bar complaint must now be personally served on the advertiser. The 72-hour withdrawal window applies to electronic media only; other media must give notice within 72 hours and withdraw as soon as practicable, within 30 days. The civil action for up to $5,000 per broadcast, open to any California resident, now covers § 6157.2. Licensee discipline now reaches §§ 6157.1, 6157.2(a)–(b) and 6157.3. Broadcasters that carry the ads are exempt.
What SB 37 does not do
Some summaries of SB 37, including AI-generated search answers we reviewed, describe the law more broadly than its text. Read against the statute, five of those claims need narrowing.
- It does not ban buying leads. The words “lead” and “lead generator” do not appear in the bill. Nothing in it stops a firm from paying for advertising that produces inquiries.
- It does not require a street address or contact details. The office disclosure is the city, town or county of one bona fide office, and the State Bar address of record can stand in for it.
- It does not require an individual lawyer’s name. A law firm, a certified referral service, or a joint advertiser that names each participating firm satisfies § 6157.2(b)(1).
- It does not make everyone who touches an ad liable. The only express assumption of liability in the text is the joint-advertising agreement in § 6155(g)(1)(B). The advertising rules do not apply to broadcasters, to the media that display ads, or to an ad agency that prepares ad content and is not directly involved in forming or operating a referral service or advertising collective (§ 6158.5(c)–(d)). The consumer cause of action sits behind the State Bar complaint process.
- Some drafts never became law. The March 26 and April 21, 2025 versions would have banned predictions of success and required references to past results to be “objectively verifiable.” Both provisions were struck on May 29, 2025, and neither is in the enacted text.
The change most summaries leave out is the one that matters most to a firm buying leads: the new private right of action over referral services.
What SB 37 means for buying MVA leads in California
SB 37 does not ban buying MVA leads in California, and it never mentions lead generators. The exposure sits in the referral-service rule: Business and Professions Code § 6155 has long barred attorneys from accepting referrals from a service the State Bar has not certified, and SB 37 added a private right to sue over it for $5,000–$100,000 per violation. An ad that names your firm is advertising; a funnel that routes claimants to a firm the ad never named can be a referral.
The rule itself is old. Section 6155(a) bars any non-governmental entity from operating “for the direct or indirect purpose, in whole or in part, of referring potential clients to attorneys” without State Bar certification, and says “no attorney shall accept a referral” from one that lacks it. Since 1994 the statute, now at § 6155(g)(2), has described certifiable referral activity as a third party that “refers the consumer to an attorney or law firm not identified in the advertising.”
The Court of Appeal applied that language to an online intake platform in Jackson v. LegalMatch.com (Cal. Ct. App., First Dist., No. A152442, filed November 26, 2019). It held that “a referral occurs when an entity directs or sends a potential client to an attorney,” whether or not the entity exercises judgment on the person’s legal issue first. LegalMatch was engaged in “certifiable referral activity, not mere advertising,” because it did not advertise the names of its subscribing attorneys and clients learned a lawyer’s name only after the referral. LegalMatch was paid by yearly or multi-year subscription and, according to the opinion, received no fee when an attorney-client relationship formed. That fee structure did not keep it outside § 6155.
What SB 37 changed is the cost of getting this wrong. Before 2026, § 6155 itself gave a private party only an injunction against a violation; civil penalties were for public prosecutors and the State Bar to recover (under former § 6156, now § 6155.1). Now any person, whether a consumer, a competitor or another law firm, can sue for $5,000 to $100,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and on the statute’s text that reaches the attorney who accepts the referral as well as the service that makes it. In setting the amount, the court weighs the number of violations, how long the conduct ran and the defendant’s net worth, among other things (§ 6156.5(b)). The statute does not say what counts as one violation. If each accepted referral counts separately, exposure grows with every lead a firm buys.
Advertising or referral: three arrangements
| Arrangement | What the claimant sees | How we read the statute |
|---|---|---|
| Ads in your firm’s own name | An ad that names your firm. The claimant contacts you. | Your advertising. You answer for its content under § 6157.2 and for the § 6157.2(b) disclosures. If someone else pays for an ad made on your behalf, § 6157.3 requires the ad to disclose the business relationship. |
| Compliant joint advertising | An ad that names each participating firm. The claimant chooses one and makes contact. | Permissible joint advertising under § 6155(g)(1), provided every firm has also signed a joint advertising agreement taking liability for the content. § 6156.5(d) says the new private action does not prohibit it. |
| Unbranded funnel to an unnamed firm | A “free case review” or “accident help” ad that names no firm. The claimant’s details go to a firm the ad never identified. | Fits the pattern § 6155(g)(2) describes and the facts of Jackson. Lawful only through a State Bar-certified lawyer referral service; otherwise both the vendor and the firm that accepts the claimant are within reach of § 6156.5. |
On our reading, the practical test is whether the consumer-facing ad identifies your firm, or a certified referral service. Exclusivity does not change the answer: a lead sold to one firm only is still routed to that firm. The pricing model does not settle it on its own either, as the subscription facts in Jackson show.
This is our reading of the text. As of October 2026 we had found no published appellate decision applying § 6156.5 to a lead purchase, so how a court would treat a particular arrangement is still open. For the wider vendor comparison (delivery, filters, credit terms), see our guide to how to buy MVA leads.
Questions to ask any California lead vendor, including us
Put the same questions to every vendor, us included, and get the answers in writing.
- Does the consumer-facing ad name your firm, or a State Bar-certified lawyer referral service? Ask for the live creative and the landing page, not a mock-up. If neither your firm nor a certified service is named, the claimant is being sent to a firm the ad never identified, which is the pattern § 6155(g)(2) describes.
- Is the vendor certified by the State Bar as a lawyer referral service? If the arrangement is a referral, State Bar certification is a precondition of it being lawful (§ 6155(a)). Check the State Bar’s directory of certified lawyer referral services rather than relying on the vendor’s word.
- If it is a joint ad, have you signed a joint advertising agreement? Section 6155(g)(1)(B) requires each participating firm to sign one that takes liability for the content. An ad that does not name you, with no agreement behind it, is not joint advertising.
- Does every ad carry the § 6157.2(b) disclosures? A responsible California lawyer, firm, certified referral service or joint advertiser, plus the city or county of a bona fide office or the State Bar address of record. Space-limited joint ads may link to a landing page instead.
- Who pays for the ad, and is that disclosed? An ad made on your behalf but paid for by someone else must disclose any business relationship, past or present, between you and the payer (§ 6157.3). Since SB 37, a licensee’s violation of that rule is cause for discipline (§ 6158.7).
- How is the fee set? California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(b) bars giving anything of value for recommending or securing the lawyer’s services, with a short list of exceptions; one is paying the reasonable costs of advertisements, and another is paying the usual charges of a qualified lawyer referral service. A fee per lead, per month or per signed case does not decide the § 6155 question by itself; Jackson involved a flat subscription. Ask what the fee pays for, and whether any part of it depends on a case being signed or how it resolves.
- Does anyone approach claimants in person? Acting as a runner or capper, or soliciting business for an attorney, in hospitals, on public streets or on private property is unlawful under § 6152(a), and § 6154 makes a client contract obtained through a runner or capper void. Ask where inquiries come from and whether any third party is paid for names.
Penalties: who can sue, for what, and how much
| Provision | Who brings it | Over what | Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 6153(c) — new | Any person | Acting as a runner or capper, or soliciting for attorneys in the places § 6152(a) lists | $5,000–$100,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is larger; attorney’s fees; injunctive or declaratory relief |
| § 6156.5 — new | Any person | Any violation of § 6155, including operating an uncertified referral service or accepting its referrals | $5,000–$100,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is larger; attorney’s fees; injunctive or declaratory relief |
| § 6157.2(c) — new | A consumer misled by the ad, after a State Bar complaint, a substantial-evidence finding, and no withdrawal | An advertisement that violates § 6157.2 | $5,000–$100,000 per unique advertisement or three times actual damages, whichever is larger; attorney’s fees; injunctive or declaratory relief |
| § 6158.4(e) — widened | Any California resident | Each broadcast that violates § 6157.2 (added to this list by SB 37), § 6158, § 6158.1 or § 6158.3 | Up to $5,000 per broadcast, paid into the State Bar’s Client Security Fund |
| § 6158.7 — widened | The State Bar | A licensee’s violation of § 6157.1, § 6157.2(a)–(b) or § 6157.3 (the three SB 37 added to this list), or of § 6158, § 6158.1 or § 6158.3 | Professional discipline |
| § 6153(a) — existing | Prosecutors | A violation of § 6152(a) (capping) | First conviction: up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. Repeat convictions: up to one year in county jail or two, three or four years under Penal Code § 1170(h), a fine of up to $15,000, or both |
| § 6155.1 — existing (formerly § 6156) | Public prosecutors or the State Bar | Violations of § 6155 | Civil penalties under the unfair competition and false advertising statutes |
| § 6154 — existing | — | A client contract obtained through a runner or capper | The contract is void; fees are divested in unfair competition actions |
The State Bar complaint and review procedure in § 6158.4 applies to licensees, certified referral services and participants in compliant joint advertising (§ 6158.4(d)). Each of the new private actions exists independently of any action, or inaction, by a government agency.
What changes on January 1, 2027
We found two bills passed in 2026 that amend sections SB 37 touched. Both were majority-vote bills without an urgency clause or a delayed operative date, so they are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
- AB 2039 (Zbur), Chapter 574, Statutes of 2026, approved September 27, 2026. It inserts a new § 6153(e): a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation of § 6152(a), with every client retained and claim filed counted as a separate violation, enforceable by the Attorney General, a city attorney or county counsel. The current § 6153(e), which keeps the private action independent of government enforcement, becomes § 6153(f). It also adds § 6152.5, which requires the State Bar to enact summary disbarment procedures for a licensee convicted of capping as a felony, or as a misdemeanor where the licensee acted knowingly and for financial gain. Its other new sections, §§ 6090.9 and 6149.6, cover whistleblower retaliation and attorney loans to clients.
- AB 540 (Connolly), Chapter 263, Statutes of 2026, approved September 18, 2026. It adds § 6155(c)(5). An attorney, or a group practicing together, that does not operate in whole or in part as a referral service is not a lawyer referral service when, incidental to representing its own clients, it refers a potential client to another attorney: either because the matter is outside its expertise and it did not solicit the matter, or because the matter exceeds its caseload or does not meet its criteria, and in each case in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The exclusion is written for practicing firms. It does not cover lead vendors, and on our reading a firm that routinely passes purchased leads to other firms for payment would struggle to show it does not operate “in part” as a referral service.
Related reading
- Bar rules for buying MVA leads: advertising fees, referral fees and vendor responsibility under the Model Rules.
- TCPA compliance for MVA lead buyers: the consent record every lead should carry.
- Questions to ask an MVA lead vendor: the general vendor checklist, beyond California.
- California MVA lead market: statute of limitations, fault rules and statewide coverage.
- Los Angeles MVA lead market: the separate market page for the Los Angeles metro.
- Signed MVA retainers: what changes when you buy a signed case rather than an inquiry.
- Pay-per-signed-case arrangements: which fee structures count as advertising expense and which as fee-splitting.
- How to buy MVA leads: delivery, filters, credit terms and speed-to-lead.
Sources
Statute text was checked on October 16, 2026 against the Legislative Counsel’s official data. That code data, current to October 3, 2026, did not yet include AB 2039 or AB 540, which are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
- SB 37 (2025), chaptered text — California Legislative Information
- Business and Professions Code, Article 9 (§§ 6150 et seq.: cappers and referral services)
- Business and Professions Code, Article 9.5 (§§ 6157 et seq.: legal advertising)
- AB 2039 (2026), chaptered text
- AB 540 (2026), chaptered text
- Jackson v. LegalMatch.com, No. A152442 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2019) — opinion
- California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2 (effective November 1, 2018) — State Bar of California
- Certified lawyer referral services directory — State Bar of California