Ask the Pack: 6 Law Firm Leadership Decisions to Reduce Legal & Ethical Risk
Due to the June ’26 Google data policy change — six questions your marketing team cannot answer without direction from firm leadership.
Disclaimer: This brief is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Firms uncertain about their obligations should consult privacy, advertising, or professional responsibility counsel before proceeding.
Google recently changed how ad data flows between Google Analytics and Google Ads. Your marketing team cannot comply without direction from firm leadership on the following six questions. Each decision carries legal, ethical, or financial consequences for attorneys — these should not be delegated to vendors.
ON THIS PAGE
01 How much risk are we willing to accept around ad data collection?
Google Ads can now associate visitor behavior on your website with signed-in Google user profiles. This improves ad performance but raises privacy and ethics considerations.
CHOOSE ONE
- Allow — prioritize ad performance; ensure disclosures are updated.
- Restrict — limit or block ad data collection; accept reduced campaign effectiveness.
02 Do we prioritize ad performance or data minimization?
These goals conflict. Better ad targeting requires more data. Stricter data limits reduce targeting effectiveness. There is no configuration that fully achieves both.
CHOOSE ONE
- Performance — allow ad_storage consent; maximize bidding and conversion data.
- Minimization — deny ad_storage by default; accept significant reduction in campaign ROI.
03 Which client and prospect jurisdictions govern our compliance standard?
CCPA applies if you serve California residents. GDPR/UK GDPR applies for EU/UK clients. Sensitive practice areas (family law, immigration, criminal defense) carry higher reputational stakes regardless of jurisdiction.
ACTION REQUIRED
Identify the firm’s primary client jurisdictions and practice areas, and confirm the applicable privacy standard with counsel.
04 Are we comfortable with ad tracking running alongside intake forms and client contact tools?
If prospective clients submit sensitive information on the same site where ad tracking runs, there is a potential conflict with Rule 1.6 (confidentiality).
ACTION REQUIRED
Review with ethics counsel whether the current website configuration requires structural separation of ad tracking from intake and contact functionality.
05 What do we want our privacy policy to say, and do we stand behind it?
The required privacy policy update is a public representation of the firm’s data practices — not a routine vendor task.
ACTION REQUIRED
Assign a partner to review existing privacy policy language, make necessary revisions, then republish.
06 Who has authority to change our website and ad account configurations?
Firms often lack clear ownership over these systems. Without a designated decision-maker and sign-off process, vendors may make changes — or avoid making them — without appropriate review.
ACTION REQUIRED
Designate a responsible person, establish a sign-off process, and communicate both to your web and ads vendors.
Once leadership answers these questions, your marketing team has the mandate it needs to act. Without them, the team is either paralyzed or making decisions above its authority.