Marketing Rules for Accountancy Firms: What the ICAEW Code Actually Restricts

Accountancy firms are subject to marketing constraints that most marketing agencies have never encountered. The constraints are not extensive, but they are unusual enough that generic campaign advice reliably runs into them.

The governing provision is R115.2 of the ICAEW Code of Ethics, sitting under the fundamental principle of professional behaviour. The 2026 edition of the Code came into force on 1 July 2026.

The core rule

R115.2 requires that when undertaking marketing or promotional activities, a professional accountant must not bring the profession into disrepute.

ICAEW's own marketing guidance sets out what this means concretely. Firms must not make exaggerated claims about the services they offer, the qualifications they hold, or the experience they have gained. And firms must not make disparaging references, or unsubstantiated comparisons, to the work of others.

The second limb is the one that surprises people, so it is worth being precise about it. ICAEW's guidance gives an explicit example: it would not be acceptable for a firm to say it provides a better service than a named competitor — even if such a statement is objectively and demonstrably true. The permitted formulation is a statement about yourself: taking pride in the service you provide.

This is a materially higher bar than advertising law generally imposes. Under the CAP Code and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, a comparative claim is broadly permissible if it is accurate, objectively verifiable, and compares like with like. Under the ICAEW Code, verifiability does not save it.

There is a related prohibition on promoting services in a way that amounts to harassment of a potential client, under R115.3.

What this rules out

Several standard agency tactics do not survive contact with R115.2.

Competitor comparison pages. The "Us vs. [named competitor]" page, a staple of SaaS and agency marketing, is not available. Comparison against an unnamed generic — "unlike some providers" — is safer, but even that needs care where the target is identifiable from context.

Superlatives without evidence. "The leading tax practice in the North West" is an exaggerated claim unless the firm holds something that substantiates it. "Award-winning" is fine where an award exists, is named, and is current. It is not fine as an adjective.

Aggressive retargeting and repeated outreach. The harassment provision in R115.3 constrains the volume and persistence of promotional contact. High-frequency retargeting campaigns and multi-touch cold sequences designed around persistence are a poor fit.

Guaranteed outcome language. "We'll cut your tax bill" is an exaggerated claim about services. "We advise on the reliefs available to businesses in your position" is not.

Testimonials implying typical results. A client quote describing a specific saving carries an implied claim about what other clients can expect. It needs qualifying or reframing.

What it does not rule out

The Code is not a prohibition on marketing, and firms sometimes over-read it into paralysis.

Permitted, and worth doing:

• Clear statements about services, sectors and specialisms
• Fee structures and pricing, including fixed fee packages
• Named individuals with their actual qualifications and experience
• Technical content, guides, and commentary
• Case studies with client consent, where outcomes are described factually and any results claim is properly framed
• Genuine client testimonials
• Statements about the firm's own standards and approach
• Paid search and paid social, subject to the content rules and to frequency judgement

The distinction that runs through all of it: claims about yourself, evidenced; not claims about others, or claims you cannot support.

Where firms actually get caught

In practice, the exposure rarely comes from a considered campaign. It comes from three places.

Legacy website copy. Text written years ago, possibly by a supplier, containing superlatives nobody has revisited. "The region's most trusted advisers" sits on an about page for six years because nobody reads their own about page.

Social media by individuals. ICAEW's guidance on professional behaviour is explicit that conduct on social media falls within scope where the author is identifiable as a chartered accountant, including out of hours. Firms that encourage fee earners to build personal profiles should give them a short brief on what the Code expects.

Third-party suppliers. Lead generation providers, directory listings, and agencies writing copy on the firm's behalf. The firm remains responsible for promotional material issued in its name. A supplier who writes "better value than the big four" has created the firm's problem, not their own.

That last point is the practical argument for engaging suppliers who understand the regime. Not because the rules are complicated — they are not — but because the failure mode is a supplier who does not know the constraint exists and produces copy that reads perfectly well by ordinary marketing standards.

Practical structure for a firm website

A compliant and commercially effective accountancy firm site tends to share the same features:

1. Specific service descriptions rather than superlatives. What you do, for whom, at what stage.
2. Named people with real credentials — ACA, ACCA, CTA, admission dates, sector experience. This satisfies the Code's expectations and is also what search engines and AI assistants use to establish expertise.
3. Published fee information where the firm can offer it. Fixed-fee packages, hourly ranges, or a clear explanation of how fees are set. This is permitted, differentiating, and among the most-searched information about any professional firm.
4. Evidenced claims only, with the evidence visible or linked — named awards with years, real client numbers, actual accreditations.
5. Substantive technical content under a named author. This is the strongest available demonstration of competence and carries no compliance friction.
6. Regulatory identifiers stated plainly — ICAEW firm registration, audit registration where held, professional indemnity confirmation.

Common questions

Can we say we are the best accountants in our town?
No. That is an exaggerated claim and, by implication, a disparaging comparison. "Chartered accountants working with owner-managed businesses across [town] since 2008" says more anyway.

Can we run comparison advertising against a named firm?
No. ICAEW's guidance rules this out even where the comparison is objectively true.

Can we publish client results?
Yes, with consent, described factually, and framed so that they are not read as a promise. "We identified £40,000 of unclaimed R&D relief for a manufacturing client in 2025" is a fact. "We save clients £40,000" is a claim about future performance.

Does this apply to ACCA firms too?
ACCA operates its own Code of Ethics and Conduct with comparable principles. The detail differs, so ACCA-regulated firms should check against their own rulebook rather than assuming equivalence.

Who signs off marketing internally?
Someone should. In smaller firms this is usually a partner. The important thing is that it is a defined step before publication rather than a review after a complaint.

---

TIKF Group builds and manages digital presence for accountancy practices, with promotional material reviewed against professional conduct requirements before it goes live. See our work with accountants.

This article describes publicly available regulatory requirements and is not legal or compliance advice. Firms should verify current obligations against the ICAEW Code of Ethics and take advice from their ethics partner or ICAEW's Technical Advisory Services.