Strategic Marketing

Articles discussing misconceptions that people or organizations have about the law or legal issues build your authority in their eyes. Here’s how to write one. If I had to bet on the single genre of thought leadership articles most likely to generate inquiries from prospective clients and referral sources, I’d bet on articles concerning misconceptions. They’re not produced nearly as often as other forms of thought leadership articles, but you’ve probably come across one or two of them at some point in your professional reading. They normally cover misconceptions regarding areas of the law (such as divorce or complying with a particular statute) or misconceptions about how to do certain things (like litigate or investigate certain matters, or handle certain types of transactions). The reason why misconceptions articles can be so effective at generating inquiries from prospective clients or referral sources is that by explaining what people are likely to get wrong about an area of the law, you demonstrate knowledge and wisdom regarding that area. You’re so good at what you do that you know the kinds of issues that tend to trip people up. Obviously, clients and referral sources want to work with and send clients to attorneys who are good at what they do. So, how exactly do you write the kinds of misconceptions articles that are likely to land with clients and referral sources? By doing these six things. First, Decide Who You’re Talking To The first task at hand with a misconceptions article is to determine who the article is talking to. Who will be the audience? Are you talking to clients? Are you talking to referral sources? Are you talking to both? Whether you serve individuals or organizations, misconceptions articles can target clients or referral sources. For example, a personal injury attorney could talk to other personal injury attorneys (i.e., potential referral sources) about what they often get wrong when litigating traumatic brain injury cases. Or, a complex commercial litigator at a corporate defense firm could discuss how corporate/M&A attorneys often have misconceptions about complying with a statute or avoiding litigation arising out of particular types of transactions. With that kind of article, the litigator could be talking to in-house counsel at an organization or corporate/M&A attorneys at other law firms that don’t have a go-to litigator to refer cases to or consult with when their clients might have a litigation issue on their hands. Second, Decide the Category of Misconceptions Your Audience Cares About This sounds like common sense, but if your audience doesn’t care about the misconceptions you’re covering, they’re not going to read or even skim your article. If they don’t read your article, it can’t do its job positioning you as an authority regarding the work you do. For this reason, even if there are misconceptions about an area of the law that you’re dying to talk about, you’ve got to be sure that your audience will care. To ensure they do, put yourself in their shoes and consider whether the misconceptions you plan to discuss would be relevant to them. If you don’t think they will—pivot to a new set of misconceptions. For example, if you’re a personal injury attorney who handles complex cases referred by other attorneys, you know that PI attorneys who don’t handle those kinds of cases might be concerned about mishandling one, leaving money on the table and possibly exposing themselves to a malpractice claim. Or, if you’re a commercial litigator, you know that corporate attorneys at law firms and inside organizations worry about screwing up deals and transactions that could lead to litigation, them getting fired, and maybe even a malpractice claim. Focus on misconceptions about these issues: the kinds of legal and business issues clients and referral sources worry about. When you do, you’re subtly saying to them, “I got you. I know how to handle these issues if you’re uncomfortable handling them yourself.” Third, Decide on The Number of Misconceptions to Cover Now that you have an idea of the direction you’re going in terms of who you’re targeting with a misconceptions article and the misconceptions they likely have, the next step is to determine how many misconceptions to cover. I would focus on three to seven. You’ll have to balance covering a decent number of misconceptions with the depth you’d like to go into about them. If you want to cover six or seven, your analysis of each one should likely be a paragraph long. This number of misconceptions is appropriate for ones for which there’s not much to say. If there are misconceptions you’d like to cover in depth, you could certainly do so, but I’d recommend covering three or four. If you go deep with too many misconceptions, you’ll suddenly have a 2500-word article that could be tough to read. If you can’t help yourself and want to cover many misconceptions in depth, consider turning your one article into a two- (or if you really want, a three-) part series with each article topping out at between 1500 and 1800ish words. Fourth, Make Sure Your Misconceptions Reflect Your Real-World Experience The misconceptions you cover should be based on your experience hearing and seeing clients, attorneys, and others actually having these misconceptions. That way, you can show, subtly or not, that you’ve seen these misconceptions (frequently?) occur in the past, which means you have a long track record of handling the kinds of issues and matters that are the basis for these misconceptions. You could talk about high-level misconceptions, but it’s better to focus on “in the weeds” misconceptions that demonstrate your judgment, knowledge, wisdom, and experience handling those matters. Fifth, Stick Your Neck Out A Bit In a misconceptions article, don’t be afraid to tackle issues that aren’t black and white. Stick your neck out by challenging conventional wisdom. Why? By doing so, you show through your misconceptions article that you are so knowledgeable and wise about the area of law you’re discussing that you can call out when the majority gets things wrong. In other words, don’t be afraid to cover misconceptions that reasonable people could disagree about. For example, you could discuss a misconception about the experts to be retained for a particular type of litigation or a negotiation style for certain types of deals. The reason why it doesn’t hurt to cover misconceptions where people could disagree is that when you do, you suggest that you know so much about the underlying legal issues and business issues for which these misconceptions arise that you’re able to stand above the fray and point out where you think the majority is getting things wrong. Sixth, Use This Three-Step Structure When Discussing Misconceptions When you finally sit down to write your misconceptions article, here’s the structure I suggest you follow for each misconception. First, describe the misconception. Second, explain why people likely think that way. Finally, explain to the audience why those people are wrong. This structure forces you to “show your work,” which more persuasively demonstrates your knowledge and wisdom. You’re making clear that not only do you know why people are wrong for thinking a certain way, but you know why they think that way and you know why they’re getting it wrong. Sure, a misconceptions article that focuses on what people think—that is, you describe the misconceptions and why they’re misconceptions—is probably serviceable and could still demonstrate knowledge and wisdom on behalf of the author. But covering why people think a certain way—why they have this misconception—signals a next level of knowledge, wisdom, experience, and judgment that’s going to persuade current and prospective clients and referral sources to turn to you to help them with the legal issues and the business issues for which people have the misconceptions you discussed. Add “Misconceptions” Articles Into Your Rotation If you were to tally the most popular types of thought leadership articles that attorneys and other professional services providers write, I’m not sure that misconceptions articles would be in the top five or even the top 10. But they’re an immensely persuasive form of thought leadership. You needn’t write a misconceptions article every time you write a thought leadership article; the novelty will wear off quickly. But you should consider working these articles into your thought leadership article rotation by writing them a few times a year.  By talking about the misconceptions that clients, referral sources, and other people are likely to have regarding particular legal and business issues, you’re positioning yourself as the first person they should call when those issues arise.

Divorce litigation has always been a search for the truth. For decades, divorce attorneys have asked the same fundamental questions: Who owns what property? How should assets be valued and divided? What income is available for support? And when children are involved, what arrangements truly serve their best interests? Throughout the years, those questions have not changed. What has changed is the technological landscape in which they are being asked. Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is now entering nearly every profession, and the practice of matrimonial law is no exception. While AI cannot replace the judgment, discretion, and ethical responsibilities of experienced attorneys and judges, it is beginning to influence how divorce cases are investigated, prepared, and litigated. Three developments, in particular, suggest that divorce law is entering a new technological era: the use of AI to uncover financial information, the emerging risk of fabricated digital evidence, and the increasing tendency of litigants themselves to turn to AI for guidance. The Search for Hidden Assets One of the oldest battles in divorce litigation is the search for undisclosed assets. For as long as equitable distribution and community property regimes have existed, spouses have attempted to conceal income, transfer funds into undisclosed accounts, or minimize the apparent value of businesses and investments. In complex cases, uncovering the true financial picture can require months of discovery and painstaking review of bank records, tax returns, and corporate documents. AI is beginning to assist in this process. AI-driven financial analysis tools can review vast quantities of financial data and identify unusual patterns that might otherwise escape detection. These systems can flag repeated transfers to unfamiliar accounts, discrepancies between reported income and actual spending, or unexplained fluctuations in business revenues. In cases involving closely held businesses or high volumes of transactions, AI can help identify areas that warrant closer scrutiny far more quickly than traditional manual review. For example, recently a case concerning a professional practice with thousands of annual transactions used AI-assisted analysis which detected a recurring pattern of transfers to an entity, newly formed shortly before the commencement of divorce proceedings—an anomaly that justified targeted discovery and expert evaluation. Still, technology alone cannot resolve these issues. AI can identify anomalies, but determining whether those anomalies reflect legitimate business activity or intentional concealment requires professional judgment. Forensic accountants, financial experts, and experienced matrimonial attorneys remain indispensable in interpreting results and presenting them persuasively to the court. AI has become—and with constant innovation will continue to be—a powerful investigative tool. Yet it can never substitute for the human capacity to perceive and interpret the subtle factual nuances of a case, apply the law accordingly, and ultimately serve as the finder of fact. The Emerging Threat of Artificial Evidence If AI can help uncover the truth, it can also be used to manufacture it. Courts across the country are beginning to confront the growing phenomenon of AI-generated content, often referred to as “deepfakes.” With increasingly sophisticated software, it is now possible to create highly realistic audio recordings, text messages, photographs, and even video footage depicting events that never occurred. In the emotionally charged context of divorce litigation, the risk of misuse is significant. A fabricated text message purporting to show financial misconduct, or a manipulated audio recording suggesting threats or coercion, could be introduced as evidence. Even if ultimately disproven, such materials may complicate litigation, increase costs, and prolong disputes, particularly at early stages when courts are making interim decisions about custody, support, or exclusive occupancy of the marital residence. Family law practitioners have always confronted questions of authenticity, but AI raises the stakes considerably. As digital evidence becomes easier to fabricate, courts will likely require more rigorous methods of authentication. Judges, attorneys, and forensic experts will increasingly need to assess not only what evidence appears to show, but how it was created, preserved, and verified. The law of evidence has always evolved alongside technological change. AI is likely to accelerate that evolution. When Litigants Turn to Artificial Intelligence Another development is already underway, though often less visible. Individuals contemplating divorce increasingly turn to AI tools to educate themselves about the legal process before consulting an attorney. AI systems can explain general legal concepts, summarize procedures, and even generate draft settlement proposals. I experienced this first-hand when moments after sending a proposed settlement offer to my client, she ran it through ChatGPT and was advised that the proposed offer was suitable. In some respects, this trend may be beneficial. Divorce is often intimidating and confusing, and access to basic information may help individuals better understand their rights and obligations. At the same time, divorce law is highly nuanced and intensely fact-specific. Outcomes often depend on subtle distinctions in financial circumstances, statutory interpretation, and judicial discretion, factors that cannot be reduced to generalized responses. While AI can provide information, it cannot provide strategy, advocacy, or judgment. Those functions remain the province of experienced legal professionals who understand not only the law, but how courts apply it in practice. New Technology, Old Questions, and the Future of Matrimonial Litigation AI will almost certainly change the manner in which divorce cases are prepared and litigated. Financial investigations may become faster and more data-driven. Evidentiary standards may tighten in response to synthetic digital content. Clients may arrive at initial consultations better informed, and sometimes misinformed, by AI-generated advice. Yet the essential work of divorce law will remain stubbornly human. Lawyers must still exercise judgment, advise clients through emotionally charged decisions, and advocate for fair outcomes. Judges must still evaluate credibility, weigh evidence, and craft equitable resolutions for families navigating a profound personal change. In Closing As AI becomes more embedded in the divorce process, courts and practitioners will need to adapt thoughtfully, embracing technology where it enhances accuracy and efficiency, while remaining vigilant against its misuse. The future of matrimonial litigation will be shaped not by machines alone, but by the wisdom with which legal professionals choose to use them. n

Engaging a jury consulting firm can materially shape the trajectory and outcome of your case. The right team brings not only insight into juror decision-making, but also discipline around strategy, sequencing, and execution. Yet even experienced trial lawyers can fall into common traps that limit the value of these engagements or undermine them entirely. In the last 20 years, the litigation industry has seen a surge of jury consulting service providers, and not all approach pricing, strategy, and service the same way. Educating yourself about what matters most and where mistakes can occur will keep your trial preparation running smoothly and ensure your dollars are well spent improving outcomes. Below are several key pitfalls to avoid when engaging jury consultants. 1. Focusing on Rates Without Understanding the True Cost Cost proposals for jury research and consulting engagements can be deceptively simple on the surface. Many firms present a competitive headline number while excluding critical components such as facility fees, data collection tools, recruiting costs, and AV equipment rental. Others include broad contingencies or disclaim responsibility for third-party costs altogether, shifting both financial risk and logistical burden to the client. This is particularly problematic because consulting firms are typically best positioned to source and vet vendors for appropriateness, negotiate pricing based on volume, and develop realistic cost estimates considering all necessary elements. Proposals with extensive exclusions and limitations can quickly escalate beyond the initial budget. Transparency upfront is often the best indicator of a well-run engagement. What to look for: Clear ownership of third-party costs Realistic, flat fee budgets that include these costs Limited and well-defined exclusions Accountability for execution, not just strategy Jury consulting firms with dedicated, professional project managers 2. Skipping Foundational Work Before Holding a Mock Trial Mock trials are powerful tools and a must-have before trying your case, but they are not always the right starting point. Legal teams that move directly into a mock trial without first conducting exploratory research (e.g., case assessment surveys, strategy sessions, or focus groups) risk testing incomplete or underdeveloped case theories. This can result in feedback that identifies problems but fails to pinpoint solutions or in enough time to execute them. An effective, iterative approach: Have a robust strategy session with the trial team and jury consultants to explore the themes and narratives that are likely to arise. Use case assessment surveys and/or focus groups to further explore themes and juror language on the issues in the case. Refine the case narrative. Conduct mock trials to test more fully developed arguments. This sequencing ensures that mock trials validate strategy and expose specific, avoidable weaknesses rather than leaving counsel and their client feeling like the case is simply unwinnable. 3. Letting the Method, Rather Than Goals, Drive the Strategy One of the more subtle but highly consequential pitfalls is approaching jury research with a predetermined method rather than starting with a clearly defined objective. Too often, litigators default to “we need to do a mock trial” as a standard step in trial preparation. But a mock trial is not a box to check; it is a tool to achieve a certain result. And like any tool, its value depends entirely on how well it matches the task at hand. The starting point should always be “what are we trying to learn or accomplish?” Examples of well-defined jury research goals: Identifying the most persuasive liability narrative Testing damages frameworks and anchoring risk Understanding juror reactions to a key witness or piece of evidence Evaluating case themes for clarity, credibility, and emotional resonance Developing a reliable juror profile Only after those goals are clearly articulated should the team determine the appropriate jury research methodology: a survey, a focus group, a mock trial, or a hybrid approach that addresses multiple concerns. Risks in reversing the process: Over-investing in methods that do not answer the right questions Generating interesting but non-actionable feedback Missing opportunities to refine strategy in a targeted way The most effective jury research engagements are intentionally designed around specific, practical objectives, with every component of the project aligned to those goals. In short, the goals should drive the project design, not the other way around. 4. Delaying Witness Preparation Until It’s Damage Control Witness preparation is often backloaded in the case strategy, but by the time depositions are taken, key narratives may already be set in stone. Witnesses who are not perceived as believable, credible, or competent may already be on video by the time consultants can work with them on corrective strategies. Without early preparation, litigation teams risk creating deposition records that are difficult to rehabilitate and inconsistent with their strongest trial themes. Experienced teams begin witness preparation before depositions, aligning testimony with case strategy from the outset and avoiding preventable credibility issues later. 5. Overestimating What AI Can Deliver Artificial intelligence is a popular topic right now, and the field of litigation consulting is no exception. Companies are cranking out tools that promise to shortcut human analysis and revolutionize results. Some AI-driven jury analytics and litigation tools can offer meaningful efficiencies in the right hands; however, we are still quite far from AI replacing the sound and experienced judgment of jury consultants. What AI currently lacks: Real-time interpretation of juror dynamics Contextual judgment developed through experience The ability to synthesize nuance across live interactions Experienced consultants, many of whom conduct dozens of jury selections and research exercises each year, bring pattern recognition and judgment that cannot be replicated by current models. Used appropriately, AI can enhance analysis and improve efficiency in content review; used as a substitute, it can create flawed assumptions and false confidence. 6. Prioritizing Geography Over Actual Experience Venue familiarity matters, but it is often overvalued when selecting a jury consultant. A common mistake is prioritizing where a consultant resides over where they have handled the most cases, as well as their overall depth and relevance of experience. While local knowledge is helpful, it does not always correlate with insight into juror behavior or case strategy. Why consultant experience matters: Works across jurisdictions regularly Recognizes broader juror patterns and behavior that transcend venue Combines local inputs with a national perspective Often, a jury consultant with extensive trial and research experience in similar matters will outperform one selected primarily for proximity. Choosing a firm with a deep bench of experienced consultants can give you the collective benefit of data from a broad range of cases and venues. 7. Excluding Trial Graphics Consultants from Jury Research Strategy Trial graphics are most effective when they are developed in tandem with case strategy, not after the narrative is formed. In addition to leaving graphic development until right before trial, showing up to the mock trial without well-designed visuals for both sides of the case can be a costly mistake. Missed opportunities when graphics teams are excluded: Increase evidence comprehension in a limited time frame Test visual concepts with jurors Identify confusion points early Refine how complex information is communicated Anticipate the presentation strategies of your opponent Including trial graphics consultants in the jury research phase ensures that visual storytelling is informed by real juror feedback, resulting in clearer, more persuasive presentations at trial. Additionally, ensuring that your jury and graphics consultants work closely together will promote efficiency and avoid support silos that often result from a non-integrated approach. 8. Ignoring Your Consultant’s Advice During Jury Selection Jury selection is one of the most consequential moments in trial. Trying the right case before the wrong jury will still result in a loss. When it comes to strike decisions, instinct often competes with empirical data. In recent years, attitudes and their correlation to demographic characteristics have shifted. The old “rules” no longer apply. Trial lawyers understandably rely on gut judgment, but disregarding a consultant’s recommendations can be a costly misstep, particularly when those recommendations are grounded in deep experience: empirical research, well-executed juror background searches, juror questionnaires and analytics, and extensive voir dire and jury research in similar cases or in the venue. Jury consultants, many of whom conduct more than 20 jury selections each year, bring valuable pattern recognition and calibration to the process. In Summary The value of litigation consulting is not just in the expertise itself, but in how that expertise is integrated into the broader trial strategy. Using the right tool at the right time is what matters. Avoiding common pitfalls when hiring consultants enables counsel to control costs more effectively, build stronger and more cohesive narratives, and make better-informed decisions at critical moments. Ultimately, the most successful jury consulting engagements are those built on transparency, a thoughtful and comprehensive program, and trust in the guidance of a well-built team.

Just because attorneys have traditionally written their own thought leadership doesn’t mean they should have or that they were qualified to do so. They shouldn’t, and most of them aren’t. Throughout history, there are countless examples of practices in society that were “the way we did things” until they weren’t any longer. We waited for people to deliver milk to our homes, until we didn’t. People dressed up in suits and dresses for everyday errands, until they didn’t. We went to restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections, until we didn’t. And attorneys traditionally wrote their own thought leadership as part of their marketing and business development efforts, until they didn’t, or at least, that’s what I hope happens. Just because attorneys have traditionally written thought leadership as part of their marketing efforts doesn’t mean they should. Their doing so is a relic from yesteryear, when the key marketing strategies they employed were networking, speaking at events, and writing, and they were forced to execute on these strategies themselves. But today, it’s a whole new ballgame. Attorneys, no matter their practice or the size of their firms, now have resources to support their marketing efforts. And when it comes to thought leadership specifically, attorneys no longer must go it alone. They’re increasingly able to turn to internal or external thought leadership ghostwriters to help them strategize and write their thought leadership. With this in mind, here are four reasons why most attorneys should not be writing their own thought leadership today. “Legal Writing” Is Not The Same As “Marketing Writing,” Even When “Marketing Writing” Covers Legal Topics It’s cliché, but it’s true: legal writing is not the same as writing for marketing and business development purposes. Just because an attorney writes extensively for their practice, whether it’s court papers, deal documents, or other work product, doesn’t mean they know how to write marketing and business development materials, including thought leadership. Legal documents tend to be written in a style that includes: Heavy use of the passive voice A detached, overly formal tone Exhaustive detail (such as including every possible argument to support a party’s position in litigation papers, or every contingency in deal documents) Effective marketing writing demands the opposite: an active, engaging voice; a conversational and accessible tone; and enough substance to make a point, but not so much that you drown a reader in details. Some attorneys can switch between these writing styles, but most can’t. They’re different skill sets that most attorneys do not have. Attorneys Approach Thought Leadership From a Legal Perspective, Not a Marketing Perspective Yes, attorneys recognize that when they write thought leadership, they’re writing it for marketing and business development purposes. But they normally don’t write for marketing and business development purposes, which affects the quality of their thought leadership. They often don’t understand that when they write for marketing and business development purposes, they should orient their writing to their target audience’s needs, whether that audience is clients, referral sources, or another group. That means crafting their thought leadership to prioritize the questions, concerns, misconceptions, etc., held by their target audiences, speaking in language their audiences understand (including industry jargon), and providing insights that are relevant, valuable, and compelling. In addition, attorneys rarely know how to write headlines that capture readers’ attention. Nor do they know how to write shorter, punchier sentences and paragraphs that are now a hallmark of the writing style we most often see in marketing and business development materials. That’s why they so often produce thought leadership content that reads more like a legal document than a marketing asset, which often fails to engage or resonate with its target audience. Attorneys Don’t Understand Best Practices For Thought Leadership Going one step further, most attorneys aren’t students of the thought leadership game. They don’t see that thought leadership is its own world within the larger marketing and business development landscape. They’re missing critical knowledge about: The creative process: They haven’t created a regular, reliable process for coming up with ideas and tinkering with them to produce compelling thought leadership. Content strategy: They don’t know how to break apart larger topics and cover them from many angles over the course of multiple articles. This gives them more (focused) content to publish and gives readers more digestible chunks of content to consume. Objective perspective: They’re often too close to their own knowledge and wisdom to realize how interesting or novel thought leadership that draws from that knowledge and wisdom might or might not be. They lack the necessary distance to assess its relevance to their target audiences. Learning from others: They’re probably consumers of others’ thought leadership, but they’re not reading it with an eye toward what works and what doesn’t, and how they can add or subtract those things from their own content to increase its quality. The competitive landscape: Perhaps most importantly, they don’t appreciate that their content is competing for attention alongside every other piece of content out there. They’re not just competing with other attorneys’ or law firms’ content; they’re competing with every piece of content on every browser tab their target audiences have open at any given time. Without understanding these best practices, attorneys’ thought leadership is likely to fall flat. Attorneys Don’t Get Enough Practice at Thought Leadership to Get Better at it Over Time The issues above that support attorneys not writing their own thought leadership are fixable. But attorneys are unlikely to get around to fixing them because they don’t get enough practice at thought leadership to do so. For the vast majority of attorneys, thought leadership is something they spend relatively little time on compared to their billable work and other marketing and business development efforts. An attorney who writes between one and six articles a year or even between six and twelve articles a year isn’t getting much practice. Writing at those frequencies won’t provide enough repetition for an attorney to make a meaningful improvement in their ability to write thought leadership. Attorneys who frequently write thought leadership, which I’d define as more than once a month, have not only found a system for producing that much volume while juggling other responsibilities, but they also tend to get better at it as they gain more practice. On the other hand, the attorneys who don’t get that much practice will almost certainly continue to produce mediocre (at best) thought leadership. A Solution for the (Ubiquitous but Often Unspoken of) Quality Gap in Legal Thought Leadership When we think about the obstacles attorneys face in consistently producing high-quality thought leadership, the first thing that comes to my mind, and probably yours, is that they’re too busy billing time to consistently produce high-quality thought leadership content. But what if that’s not really true? What if the biggest obstacle isn’t one of time, but of skill? If you read enough attorney-produced thought leadership articles, you’ll see there’s a range of quality among the articles. For the reasons I described above, not every attorney has the skills and time to regularly produce thought leadership content that’s relevant, valuable, and compelling to their target audiences. Those attorneys who regularly have topics in mind for thought leadership articles but don’t have the skill (or time) to write them should consider turning to an internal (i.e., in-house) or external thought leadership ghostwriter to take those topics from ideas to published content. Whether it’s a colleague at their firm or an external ghostwriter, professional thought leadership ghostwriters bring expertise, strategy, and execution at levels well above what most attorneys can muster. These writers eat, sleep, and breathe thought leadership. They understand the nuances, stay current with best practices, and deliver consistent quality because it’s their primary focus, not an add-on to their everyday work. Professional thought leadership ghostwriters bring three critical elements to the table. First, they know how to design optimal thought leadership strategies. They understand how thought leadership fits into attorneys’ and law firms’ broader marketing and business development efforts, and can conceptualize thought leadership initiatives that drive actual results. Second, they know how to execute effective thought leadership programs. They know best practices inside and out because they stay current with what works in content marketing and thought leadership. Finally, they know how to write high-quality thought leadership content that maintains a consistent voice and quality across all pieces and that resonates with audiences. When attorneys work with internal and external ghostwriters, they do so collaboratively. Attorneys provide legal expertise and unique insights, while ghostwriters handle strategy, execution, and writing. As a result, attorneys publish higher-quality content under their names that better builds authority and attracts clients and referral sources. Attorney-Written Thought Leadership Should Go the Way of the Milkman and Restaurants’ Smoking Sections Receiving milk deliveries at your home, putting on a suit to go to the grocery store, and sitting in a smoking section of a restaurant are all relics of days past. I nominate attorneys writing their own thought leadership as a future relic of the past. Not because attorneys are incapable, but because specialized skills produce better results. Just as we’ve come to realize that home milk delivery isn’t the most efficient system anymore, it’s time to recognize that attorneys sitting down to write their own thought leadership 100% of the time isn’t the optimal approach to a vital component of their marketing and business development efforts. The future of legal thought leadership is collaborative: attorneys provide the insights and expertise; professional thought leadership ghostwriters provide the strategy and execution. And that’s good news for everyone involved: the attorneys who can market themselves without having to invest as much time as they would if they wrote thought leadership articles themselves, and their target audiences, who stand to gain from having access to more relevant, valuable, and compelling legal thought leadership content.

A law firm’s website is its most visible and most permanent business development asset. Yet for many firms, it remains under-leveraged. Not because they aren’t investing in design or technology, but because the content itself is rarely aligned with a firm’s revenue strategy, target clients, or growth priorities. The result is a credibility gap: a disconnect between the sophistication of the firm’s work and what its website communicates to prospective clients and referral sources. This isn’t a question of effort. It’s a matter of alignment. Over time, firms adopt default approaches to web content that prioritize completeness over positioning. The impact is subtle but material: missed opportunities to reinforce differentiation, clarify value, and support measurable growth objectives. In this article, we examine three common content habits that create this credibility gap—and outline practical shifts that reposition the website as an active, strategic business development tool rather than a static digital brochure. We also consider how emerging tools, including AI-driven content development, can either reinforce these habits or help firms correct them when used intentionally. Writing for Internal Approval Instead of External Audiences The most common content habit that hinders law firm websites is writing for the wrong reader. Institutional language and carefully hedged practice descriptions don’t persuade potential clients that they are looking at an experienced, trustworthy, and knowledgeable firm. They create distance at precisely the moment the content should be building confidence. The fix isn’t just stylistic. It requires reorienting the website content development process around a different question, not whether it accurately represents what the firm does, but whether it gives a prospective client a reason to believe the firm understands their situation. That shift, applied consistently across the firm’s website, is what moves a website from a credential repository to a genuine business development tool. This is particularly important as more firms experiment with AI-assisted drafting tools. While AI can accelerate content production, it often defaults to generalized, institutional language unless guided by clear strategic inputs. Without thoughtful direction, automation can amplify sameness rather than sharpen differentiation. Attorney Bios That List Credentials Instead of Building Confidence Attorney profiles and the “About” page are among the most visited pages on a law firm website and among the most consistently underwritten. Typical bios that follow the familiar format with a summary of practice areas, bar admissions, education credentials, and a list of representative matters are accurate, complete, and almost entirely forgettable. For a prospective client trying to determine whether this is the right attorney for their circumstances, a credential list answers the wrong question. While it confirms that the attorney is qualified, it says almost nothing about whether they are the right fit. What prospective clients look for is a sense of the lawyer behind the generic information. Address questions such as: How does this attorney approach client relationships? What kinds of problems is this attorney most experienced in solving? Does this attorney’s background map onto a client’s specific industry or situation? A profile that surfaces those details, even briefly, can do more business development work than a comprehensive credentials summary ever will. Rethinking attorney profiles requires treating the profile as a narrative asset rather than a compliance exercise. Across a full firm website, profiles written with that orientation create a compounding credibility effect that generic bios simply cannot. AI can assist in organizing experience and identifying thematic strengths across a lawyer’s matters, but the strategic insight that differentiates this attorney in the market must still come from deliberate positioning decisions. Technology supports the process; it does not replace it. Treating the Website as a Publication Event Rather Than a Living Asset Many law firms approach website content as something that gets done rather than something that gets maintained. Practice pages are drafted during a redesign cycle and revisited years later, if at all. Blog posts are published actively during busy periods and go quiet when attorney bandwidth tightens. The cumulative effect, visible to any prospective client who spends more than a few minutes on the site, is a website that feels dated, uneven, and inconsistently invested in. A staggering estimated 38% of website visitors will abandon a site entirely due to outdated information and appearance on pages. This matters more than firms tend to recognize, as it reflects on the firm’s attention to detail. A website that appears neglected raises a quiet but persistent question about whether the firm is as current and engaged as it claims to be. The underlying habit is treating the website as a project with a launch date and completion milestone rather than a valuable business development asset that requires ongoing management. Firms that close this gap don’t necessarily publish more; they publish with more intention. The website is never finished, and the firms that treat it that way are the ones whose sites actually work. In an environment where AI tools make publishing faster and easier than ever, cadence alone is no longer a differentiator. Intentionality is. A living website is not defined by volume of content but by disciplined alignment with strategy. Breaking the Habits These habits are not unique to any one firm, practice area, or market. They show up consistently across law firm websites of every size, and they persist because website content rarely gets the strategic attention that it deserves. Law firm websites serve as the primary first impression for over 70% of potential clients. Closing the credibility gap doesn’t require firms to redesign or completely overhaul their content, but simply to take a more intentional approach to the content that already exists. Shifting the focus of website content to develop practice descriptions for an audience of prospective clients, recasting attorney profiles that demonstrate understanding along with experience and qualification, and publishing cadences that treat the website as an active business development tool are small changes that will produce large dividends. The good news is that these changes aren’t costly ones, either. They are disciplined, and their cumulative effect on how a firm is perceived and whether a prospective client decides to make contact is significant. This isn’t about rewriting everything. It’s about applying a strategic lens to an asset the firm already owns. As AI becomes more integrated into content workflows, firms that pair efficiency with clear positioning will see the greatest return. When website content reflects strategy rather than default habit, the credibility gap narrows, and the firm’s digital presence begins to reinforce the work behind it.

Your ideal client opens ChatGPT and types in “Make me a short list of the best lawyers for [your specialty] in [your location].” Will you show up? It’s a complicated answer for many reasons: The longer one uses a given LLM, the more it tailors responses—and incorporates assumptions about one’s preferences. It’s only a matter of time before the companies behind these tools monetize the results. Google AI Overviews are already doing it. LLM responses are incredibly inconsistent, even within the same platform. Research shows that there is less than a 1 percent chance that ChatGPT or Google AI will give you the same list of brands in any two responses. Claude is the consistency leader at a whopping 1.65 percent. There is a considerable Big Law bias that will challenge many small firms. All of this while experts predict everything from a deflated AI bubble to Skynet becoming self-aware. At best, assessing AI visibility right now feels like being a meteorologist on the local news: I can tell you the current conditions and look about ten days out. (But a thunderstorm may still pop up tomorrow.) It’s dangerous to rely on sweeping one-size-fits-all “get seen on AI” advice. I saw a statistic last week claiming that something like 96 percent of AI results come from earned media; that’s not accurate. To understand what the LLMs are looking at—right now—let’s take a look at an actual boutique law firm for which I did this analysis. To eliminate bias, we use special software that rotates IP addresses daily; to provide reliable trend data, it runs thousands of queries. While every law firm’s context is different, this can help you see the sources LLMs use to recommend lawyers and law firms. We set up an exercise based on this law firm’s practice areas (i.e., What are the best law firms for XYZ litigation?), and tracked the sources. This shows not only what resources the LLMs rely on, but also how different their outputs can be. ChatGPT Favorite source: Wikipedia. ChatGPT referenced law firm pages on Wikipedia in 35.6 percent of queries. No other source topped 9 percent. Runner-up: Large law firm practice pages. Among the top 20 most frequently cited domains, 16 were law firms, and eight of those were AmLaw 200 firms. On these websites, the LLMs are crawling practice pages, not lawyer biographies or educational content. (This is a marked difference from human habits; your carbon-based lifeform clients will look at biographies more than anything else.) Rankings: ChatGPT does not rely on rankings. It references Chambers in 4.1 percent of queries, the only lawyer ranking to make the top 20 most frequently cited sources. Legal 500 surfaced in 2.7 percent of answers, and Best Law Firms and Martindale both showed up in 1.4 percent. Earned media: ChatGPT isn’t bullish on traditional news, either. It referenced a regional legal trade publication in 6.8 percent of answers; a national newspaper in 2.7 percent; and a global news site in 1.4 percent. These were the only three “earned media” sources cited in the top 100. Wild card: ChatGPT loves lurking on Reddit. It was the No. 11 most-cited source. To be sure, some of the pages ChatGPT cited were dedicated to kvetching about associates, but in this LLM’s eyes, Reddit is a reliable source. What I’d recommend: If you want to prioritize ChatGPT, I’d tell you to prepare to play a long game and earn a Wikipedia page. For a shorter turnaround and simpler actions, you should align your practice pages to accommodate both humans and robots (and that’s another article). Perplexity Favorite source: Awards and rankings, and it’s not close. Perplexity cited Super Lawyers in just more than half (50.7 percent) of all answers. Right behind it: Best Lawyers, with 45.2 percent, and Chambers, with 38.4 percent. Runner-up: Law firm practice pages. Among the top 20 most frequently cited domains, 12 were law firms. The big-firm bias is a little less pronounced on Perplexity: just three of the 12 were AmLaw 200 firms. Rankings: As stated above, Perplexity favors rankings more than any other source. The platform tends to steer people toward resources that help them scout law firms on their own, rather than explicit recommendations. Other rankings and roundups in the top 20 include Avvo (27.4 percent); BTI Consulting’s client recommendations (20.5 percent); and Vault (17.8 percent). Earned media: The only traditional earned media cited was Law360 (in 1.4 percent of answers). Wild card: Perplexity also likes Reddit; Reddit chats surfaced in 17.8 percent of answers. Unlike ChatGPT, there were zero citations for Wikipedia. What I’d recommend: For Perplexity, work on your rankings game. I would prioritize Chambers department rankings in the practices and regions that matter most. Keep your lawyers active in Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers voting, and explore paid placements for your most lucrative niches. Google AI Overviews Favorite source: There’s a slight edge to law firm websites, but it’s less pronounced than the favoritism shown by the other LLMs to their preferred sources. Among the top five sources, three are law firms; one is Chambers; one is Vault. On Google AI overviews, small law firms with smart SEO fare better. Of the 13 law firms cited most frequently, only two were Am Law 200 firms. One firm was a sole practitioner. Google AI overviews are more democratic—and reward firms that play Google’s original game. Runner-up: Legal reference pages took three of the top 10 spots. This includes Vault (31.9 percent) as well as law firm lists maintained by BCG Search (16.7 percent) and BTI Consulting (16.7 percent). Like Perplexity, Google AI overviews often direct users to resources that help them scout lawyers themselves. Rankings: Google AI overviews rely less on rankings than Perplexity does, but Chambers was the second-most-cited source, appearing in 36.1 percent of all answers. Other industry accolades that appeared: Super Lawyers (15.3 percent); Legal 500 (11.1 percent); Best Lawyers (5.6 percent); Best Law Firms (1.4 percent). Earned media: Google AI overviews cited earned media more than the other LLMs. Law360 appeared in 22.2 percent of answers, ranking seventh-most-cited, but usage dropped afterward. The ABA Journal, Law.com, and a specific regional legal trade were each cited in 1.4% of answers. (Note that this is the LLM with the highest use of earned media, but it doesn’t approach the apocryphal claim that 96 percent of LLM answers use earned media). Wild card: Pay-to-play newswires. Google AI overviews treat press releases posted on PR Newswire and EIN Presswire as “news.” Savvy law firms used this to announce rankings in Best Law Firms and major case results. Interestingly, there were no Wikipedia citations, and Reddit was cited only once. What I’d recommend: Specific to Google AI overviews, look to build a well-rounded online presence—just as you would for traditional Google results. Consider using paid newswires to share major accomplishments and rankings. The Bottom Line There is no magic answer to AI visibility, but this actual case study shows the sources each platform tends to favor. Without getting into tactical takeaways (which should be based on your firm’s context), here are the two primary lessons: While there’s no silver bullet to top all of the LLM charts, a well-rounded online presence will help you rise across all of them. Many of these pieces work together; for example, we know that Google AI likes earned media, but ChatGPT favors Wikipedia. What helps you get a Wikipedia page? Earned media mentions. If it’s worth saying, it’s worth repeating. LLMs pull from varied sources. If your firm ranks Band One in Chambers, it will obviously appear on that site, but it should be on your practice page and run as a newswire item. Demonstrate your firm’s strengths consistently and frequently across a variety of outlets. No one, human or bot, is scanning just one source. A comprehensive approach and consistent messaging: These fundamentals have been key to effective law firm marketing long before generative AI, and they will be instrumental to your firm’s success with it. 

For decades, the billable hour has done more than price legal work. It has protected the legal profession from scrutiny. It has allowed firms to monetize effort rather than outcomes, to reward labor intensity rather than efficiency, and to postpone a harder conversation about what clients are actually buying. That conversation is now arriving. Artificial intelligence, workflow automation, better knowledge systems, and increasingly sophisticated legal operations functions are beginning to reduce the time lawyers spend on many tasks. Once that happens, the hourly model becomes awkward. It reveals too much. It exposes how quickly some matters can now be completed, how unevenly firms are progressing technologically, and how vulnerable certain economics may be. That is why value billing, alternative fee arrangements, fixed fees, subscriptions, success fees, and hybrid pricing models are no longer side issues. They are becoming a strategic necessity. Many firms will describe this transition in elevated terms. They will say value billing aligns incentives, improves predictability, rewards innovation, and better serves the client. All of that may be true. But let us also acknowledge the less-advertised reality: value billing gives firms a way to avoid disclosing just how much less time some work may now require. This shift will not simply alter pricing. It will alter competition, client behavior, law-firm economics, business development, and perhaps even the profession’s structure. Below are ten trends likely to accompany the rise of value billing. 1. Firms will migrate to value-billing in part to conceal the shrinking time needed to do legal work. As AI and process improvements reduce the number of hours required to execute legal tasks, firms will have a strong incentive to move away from time-based billing. Under an hourly model, efficiency can reduce revenue. Under a value-based model, efficiency can expand margins. That is not a subtle distinction. It is the entire game. The billable hour worked well when firms could plausibly sell time as the core unit of value. But when time becomes easier to compress, it also becomes more dangerous to display. Value billing allows firms to monetize results, judgment, and certainty instead of exposing the diminishing labor required to produce them. 2. Firms with a history of AFAS will market that history aggressively. The firms that experimented early with AFAs will use that history as a competitive credential. They will describe themselves as forward-thinking, client-centered, and operationally mature. They will argue that they have already learned how to scope matters, price risk, and align incentives. Some of those claims will be fully deserved. Some will be marketing retrofitted as a strategy. Either way, firms with a prior record of fixed-fee or hybrid pricing will trumpet it loudly, because in the coming market, pricing confidence will signal management confidence. 3. “Value for fees” will become a much more important competitive measure. For years, many law firms have preferred to compete on reputation, expertise, relationships, and rates, while leaving the phrase “value for fees” somewhat imprecise. That will change. Once clients become more accustomed to fixed or scoped pricing, they will ask sharper questions. What exactly am I getting? What degree of certainty is being provided? What assumptions underlie the price? How is risk being shared? What process advantages enable this firm to deliver the work at this price point? In other words, “value” will become less rhetorical and more comparative. 4. AI maturity will create real pricing disparities among firms. Some firms will be well ahead of others in their use of AI, automation, knowledge management, and matter design. Those firms may know far more about their own delivery economics than their competitors do. That matters because firms with stronger internal systems can price with greater confidence. They may choose to retain the spread as profit. They may selectively pass savings to clients. Or they may use aggressive pricing to win market share in strategic practices or industries. Whatever path they choose, unequal AI maturity will produce unequal pricing power. 5. More legal projects may move forward because pricing certainty lowers the client’s resistance. One underappreciated consequence of value billing is that it may stimulate demand. Clients often defer or avoid legal projects because the final cost is uncertain. A fixed-fee arrangement lowers that barrier. It makes spend easier to budget, easier to explain internally, and easier to approve. The matter that feels too risky under an open-ended hourly structure may suddenly become manageable when the price is scoped and known in advance. In that sense, value billing may not merely reprice existing work. It may bring additional work into the market. 6. Client legal planning will become more important. If firms are going to price work based on value rather than simply recording time after the fact, they will need a much deeper understanding of what is coming. That means more dialogue with clients about business priorities, legal risk, likely projects, timing, staffing, and budget sensitivity. The accounting and consulting professions learned long ago that periodic client planning conversations were essential. Quarterly meetings with the client in the room were not ceremonial. They were part of the commercial infrastructure. Law firms will need more of that discipline. Client planning will no longer be optional relationship maintenance. It will become a core input into pricing, staffing, and growth. 7. Consolidation will continue and likely accelerate. If AI and value billing reduce the legal labor required to handle certain categories of work, the threshold volume of work needed to support existing firm structures may decline. That has consequences. The accounting profession offers a cautionary analogue. Major market shifts, increasing process discipline, service-line evolution, and relentless client pressure contributed to dramatic consolidation. Law will not follow the exact same path, but it would be unwise to assume immunity. As value billing expands, firms with better systems, stronger brands, clearer sector positioning, and better cost discipline will gain a relative advantage. Weaker firms will find it harder to sustain margins, justify headcount, and compete for premium work. Consolidation, combinations, and strategic mergers are therefore likely to increase. 8. Marketing and business development investments will rise. If firms can no longer rely on the passive monetization of lawyer time, winning the work becomes even more important. That sounds obvious, but it has profound implications. Firms will need sharper market positioning, better industry narratives, more disciplined key-client programs, stronger client listening, more sophisticated pursuit strategies, and better cross-selling. They will need professionals who understand pricing, growth, client experience, and sector-based differentiation. This is already happening. The firms that view marketing and business development as overhead will be at a disadvantage compared to those that understand these functions as essential to revenue capture in a more competitive, more transparent market. 9. The in-house versus outside counsel balance may shift in both directions. AI creates a more complicated sourcing question than many assume. Some legal departments may pull more work in-house because technology gives them greater capacity and lowers the cost of handling repeatable matters. Others may push more work outside because firms with better systems, specialized talent, and scalable delivery can handle that work more efficiently. The result may not be a simple move in one direction. Instead, work may migrate toward whichever provider—law department, law firm, or alternative legal services provider—can best combine expertise, speed, process, and price certainty. 10. Yet many legal departments may still resist disciplined bidding and continue to “lead-pipe” work. For all the rational arguments in favor of disciplined sourcing, legal buyers often default to trust, familiarity, and speed. General counsel and senior in-house lawyers frequently send work to firms they know, especially when the stakes are high or the time frame is short. That tendency may persist. It may even intensify in a period of uncertainty. So, while value billing may increase pricing sophistication, it may not immediately produce a correspondingly rational procurement culture. Many legal departments will continue to rely heavily on established outside counsel relationships, even while saying all the right things about competition and discipline. Additional Trends Worth Watching Three additional developments seem likely: First, strategic pricing will become a more important leadership capability. Pricing will no longer be a finance-side afterthought. It will become part of the competitive strategy. Second, legal project management will matter more than many firms currently believe. Under value billing, poor scoping, and sloppy staffing do not merely annoy clients. They destroy profitability. Third, some legal services will become more productized. Subscription compliance packages, workflow-based regulatory support, managed services, and modular offerings will become more common, particularly where the work is recurring, data-heavy, or operationally repeatable. Conclusion The biggest misconception about value billing is that it is just a different way to send an invoice. It is not. It is a different way of thinking about the product, the client, the economics, and the firm itself. It shifts the focus from effort to outcome, from activity to predictability, from hours to judgment, from internal timekeeping to external value. Some firms will thrive in that world. They will know how they create value, how they price it, how they deliver it, and how they explain it. Others will struggle because the billable hour has long concealed weak process, weak planning, weak pricing discipline, and weak business development. The billable hour did not merely measure legal work. It hid a great deal. Value billing will expose it.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. And in these days of increasingly short attention spans, the opportunity to make that first impression is often only a few seconds. During those fleeting moments, your law firm logo does some heavy lifting. Yet many law firms give little attention to the image that introduces, and represents, them to the world. That’s a lost opportunity. What a Law Firm Logo Is (and Isn’t) A law firm logo is more than just decoration; it’s communication. In a sense, it is your firm’s signature, a consistent, recognizable endorsement. In law, even more than other professions, clients choose firms they trust. Your firm’s logo is a visual signal of your law firm’s credibility, trustworthiness, and reputation. Your logo is an important component of your branding, but it is not your brand. The logo is a symbol, while the brand is the meaning that the symbol evokes: your law firm’s values and culture, and the emotional response that people have to the firm. In short, your law firm logo is a visual anchor, calling to mind what your firm means to people every time they see it. A logo is the nucleus of the visual representation of your brand. As such, it’s a springboard for other elements of your visual brand, including color palette and typography. When it comes to designing a law firm website, a strong logo is like a painter having a full set of brushes at their disposal, opening up a world of possibilities for expression. A weak, bland, or uninspiring logo is like having a single broken brush: it’s possible to be creative within those constraints, but your options will be limited. Given the importance of a logo to the development of a visual brand, it’s important to understand just what goes into an effective logo. Anatomy of a Law Firm Logo Logotype/Wordmark Unless you’re a mega-brand like Apple or Nike, your law firm’s name generally needs to appear in your logo. When the name is included in your logo, this is often referred to as the logotype, or wordmark. The logo designer will select a font that evokes your firm’s brand, or perhaps a combination of fonts, for your firm name. Once you have a font selected for your logo, you’ll be able to reuse that font across all of your written communications. For your website, we’ll use that font and find complementary fonts that match it. Many law firm logos consist only of the logotype. This can work well if you’re an established name in your field, have a unique firm name, or otherwise are less concerned with marketing for your firm. Logomark A logo often has an illustrated or designed visual element, called a symbol or logomark. In addition to giving the logo visual interest, the logomark can hint at the firm’s personality. Perhaps the logomark is an abstract design. Or maybe it’s a bold way of framing the partners’ initials. Some law firms include an image in their logomark that serves as a metaphor for the firm’s approach to practice, like a lighthouse that shows the firm can help a client navigate through the storm of a lawsuit. No matter what the final look is, it should be consistent with the image the firm wants to present. Tagline A tagline might appear in a logo to provide an additional text description of the firm. A tagline could simply state the focus of your practice (“Real Estate Attorneys”), or it might be a more marketing-heavy phrase that highlights your firm’s values (“Client-Focused Advocacy”). For newer law firms, or firms that are focused on marketing, we recommend having a tagline along with the logo to make it clear to potential clients that they’re in the right place. Logo Variations It’s likely that one iteration of your logo isn’t going to meet all your needs. Depending on how much active marketing your firm is involved in, you might need horizontally and vertically oriented versions of your logo. You may want a black and white rendering, one that can work on light backgrounds or dark backgrounds, resized versions for social media, etc. While they won’t be identical to one another, they should be similar enough that someone seeing any variation of your logo will instantly understand its connection to your firm. There are innumerable ways variants of your logo might be reused, including: Website Email signatures Zoom/Teams backgrounds and virtual meeting assets Letterhead and envelopes Proposals, pitch decks, and presentations Informational brochures Newsletters and firm announcements Exterior and interior office signage Client portals and document management systems Merchandise and promotional items Event materials Having a clear idea of the components of the logo, as well as having the design files on hand, will allow your designer to quickly create what you need. The repetition of your logo on various media creates a cohesive, professional image for your firm. Every Law Firm Has a Logo (Intentionally or Not) Fun fact: just because you didn’t design a logo doesn’t mean you don’t have one! If you think your law firm doesn’t have a logo, here’s some unfortunate news: as soon as you picked the font for your letterhead or business cards, you also took the first step to designing your firm’s visual identity. Like it or not, using Word’s default font constitutes a decision on how you want to present your firm to the world. Since clients, colleagues, and the public are going to form a visual impression of your firm no matter what you do (or don’t do), you might as well purposefully shape that impression. If you’d prefer not to have a logo-by-default, it might be time to contact a logo designer! Do I Really Need a Logo Designer? You don’t technically need a design professional to create your logo, in much the way you don’t technically need a barber to cut your hair: you can do it yourself, but you might not like what the result says about you. There are three primary reasons we recommend that attorneys work with a professional designer on their logo: Cost-Effectiveness Almost always, your time is better spent on billable work than design work. If you don’t have experience in this area, you could lose valuable time wading through options and jargon, not to mention learning the software and file types needed to create a professional-looking image that’s usable on the web. A professionally-designed logo also ages better and requires fewer redesigns. It makes future marketing easier, and reduces your costs in the long term. Intentional, Strategic Design A professional designer doesn’t begin with visuals; they work to understand your practice area, client profile, tone, and style. They take into account your preferences and build from there. An experienced designer also understands how a logo will appear in print versus digitally; how to make a logo legible at all sizes, and how to use typography to signal trust, sophistication, or other traits. In short, they’ll ensure that your logo looks right and truly represents your firm’s brand. Consistency When you work with someone to design a logo, the goal is to be able to use that logo for many years, and for many needs. When you work with a skilled designer, especially one associated with an agency, you get a system, not just an image. There are color rules and font standards that prevent “drift” in your logo image over time. If you discover a new need or use for your logo, your designer will have the files on hand to make it happen. Remember the purpose of your logo: to create a positive impression of your firm in the eyes of those who encounter it. Working with a professional designer on your logo is an investment in your firm’s image and brand. Key Takeaways Your law firm logo makes a critical first impression on viewers A logo may be composed of a logomark, logotype, and perhaps a tagline You will probably need variations of your logo for various digital media, print collateral, and promotional items If you don’t intentionally create a logo, your font choices will serve as your “default” logo An experienced designer can help you express your visual brand professionally, consistently, and cost-effectively.

Industry newsletters build authority and open doors like no other thought leadership tool can. I don’t see many law firms using industry newsletters as a thought-leadership tool to help their industry groups build their authority. They should be. A consistent newsletter delivered every week or two, covering legal developments in an industry (including an industry group’s own recent and relevant thought leadership), along with other “news” relevant to executives and people in that industry, is an incredibly potent thought leadership tool whose effectiveness and cachet will compound over time. Here are 12 reasons why, if your law firm has industry groups, they should produce newsletters that cover what’s happening in their industries. Industry Newsletters Demonstrate Industry Knowledge First, obviously, an industry newsletter demonstrates that an industry group and its attorneys are knowledgeable about, and are keeping tabs on what’s happening in a particular industry beyond just legal issues affecting industry players. An industry group will be seen as being knowledgeable about the industry it covers in a newsletter because its content is focused on the industry and covers a wide range of developments within it. The newsletter becomes a reliable, credible source for news about that industry. For some industries, or segments of some industries, the newsletter might be the only credible source of news about that industry or segment. Industry Newsletters’ Curated Content Creates Perceived Authority Second, on a related note, by curating content for an industry newsletter, your attorneys will be seen as authorities regarding that industry. Not only does an industry-focused newsletter demonstrate knowledge of an industry simply by offering a collection of relevant content (as I mentioned above), but the act of whittling down countless news articles, thought leadership from industry players, videos, podcasts, and other industry-related content implicitly builds attorneys’ authority regarding the industry. An industry group’s attorneys will be seen as authorities on the industry because they can separate the wheat from the chaff, providing industry-related content that’s relevant to industry executives and other industry players. Industry Newsletters Are Marketable, Compounding Assets Third, unlike some other forms of thought leadership content, industry newsletters are assets whose value increases over time. They’re marketable assets because they can be used in a call to action at the end of every presentation or in other thought-leadership pieces, such as blog posts or articles. They’re a reliable and effective way to offer industry players the opportunity to raise their hands and say, “Yes, I’m someone who’s interested in staying abreast of what’s happening in [x] industry.” Industry newsletters are also compounding assets. Over time, assuming its quality remains high, and it’s consistently published, an industry newsletter will increasingly be seen as a, if not THE, go-to source of information regarding an industry. Over the weeks, months, and years the newsletter has been published, it will become more authoritative due to its longevity and consistency. Industry Newsletters Proactively Reinforce Perceived Authority Fourth, once someone has opted in to receive an industry newsletter, it becomes an ongoing relationship builder that reliably keeps you and your colleagues at the top of that subscriber’s mind and reinforces your and your colleagues’ authority regarding the industry you serve. Unlike other pieces of thought leadership that clients and other industry players might discover by reading online publications or scrolling on social media, industry newsletters proactively reinforce your industry group’s authority by arriving in the email inboxes (or mailboxes) of clients and industry players. Even if your industry group did nothing more to engage with people on its email list than send its newsletter, the newsletter will reinforce your industry group’s authority. Industry Newsletters Are a Relatively Light Content Lift Fifth, I love thought leadership articles: 1000- to 1500-word articles that demonstrate authors’ expertise, credibility, knowledge, and wisdom. But not all attorneys have time to regularly produce thought leadership, nor do they all have ideas to power a thought leadership program. When you produce an industry newsletter, however, you’re typically writing fewer words because you’re summarizing and explaining the relevance of the pieces of content you’re including in your newsletter, whether that content is your firm’s thought leadership, other organizations’ thought leadership, or news articles about the industry. You probably need less than 1000 words to do all of that work, which will come in the form of short blurbs that are easier to write than in-depth thought leadership articles. Industry Newsletters Don’t Have to Deal With Media Gatekeepers Sixth, in my experience, most industry publications that accept contributed articles are welcoming to individuals who want to submit articles. Yes, they have standards and minimum requirements, but if they accept articles, there’s a good chance they’ll publish a well-written one. But a “good chance” does not mean “they absolutely will,” nor is there a guarantee of when they will publish an article or how well they will publicize it to their subscribers, such as by featuring it on the first page of their website or in emails to subscribers. Compare that to an industry newsletter. Assuming there are no issues with deliverability or overzealous spam filters, there’s no gatekeeper preventing that content from reaching recipients. Industry Newsletters Don’t Have to Deal With Algorithmic Gatekeepers, Either Seventh, on a related point, industry newsletters aren’t subject to the whims of algorithms. Again, assuming no issues with deliverability or spam filtering, when your industry group sends a newsletter, it lands in recipients’ email inboxes or mailboxes. If you published that same content on LinkedIn or some other social media platform, their algorithms would likely deliver the content to a small percentage of your followers. We’re talking, probably, less than 10 percent. But, again, assuming no deliverability or spam filter issues, if there are 500, 5,000, or 50,000 people on your industry group’s email list, all 500, 5,000, or 50,000 should receive the email. Industry Newsletters Invite Potential Clients and Referral Sources to Step Out of the Shadows Eighth, industry newsletters draw industry players into the light when they opt in to receive them. Though you probably have a general sense of the people and organizations interested in the goings on in a particular industry, you won’t always know who those people and organizations are, especially if there are new entrants. When they opt into your group’s industry newsletter, they’re sending a signal that they have some interest in the industry. They transform from an entity you didn’t know existed into a potential client, referral source, or co-marketer. Industry Newsletters Are Distribution Channels for Your Thought Leadership Ninth, industry newsletters are the perfect delivery mechanism for your industry group’s own thought leadership, assuming you share one or two pieces of content per newsletter that are relevant and timely. Including your content in your newsletter ensures people see it (for the reasons I mentioned in the previous two sections). But your industry newsletter is not the forum within which to shove 10 recent blog posts down recipients’ throats, nor is it the forum to distribute an article from three years ago that has little value to them. Industry Newsletters Open Lines of Communication Tenth, industry newsletters make it easy for recipients to get in touch with members of your industry group to give feedback, ask questions, or request meetings. All professional services providers should strive to eliminate any friction that current and prospective clients and referral sources may face when they want to speak with that provider. With industry email newsletters, recipients can easily click “reply” and start a conversation. Industry Newsletters Invite Opportunities for Collaboration Eleventh, on a related point, industry newsletters provide opportunities for collaboration with newsletter recipients beyond you and your colleagues getting hired by one. Your firm’s industry newsletter might spark an idea that a current or prospective client or referral source has about teaming up to co-author an article, give a presentation at a conference, or appear on a podcast. Perhaps one of your group’s thought leadership pieces you included in a newsletter issue indicates to a potential referral source that you’ve handled particular kinds of matters previously, which they didn’t realize, and sparks a conversation about how they could work with you to service their clients’ needs. Consistently publishing a newsletter that reaches industry players will open doors to partnerships you likely would have never seen coming. Industry Newsletters Have a Low Barrier to Entry Finally, twelfth, compared to many other marketing and business development tools, industry newsletters are a light lift. You don’t need to buy expensive equipment or software. You don’t need to hire people with special training. For email newsletters, you’re likely looking at no more than $1000/month to use software like MailChimp, Kit, or Beehiiv, and that’s if you have tens of thousands of subscribers. (If you don’t have that many subscribers, the monthly fee could be under $200.) For hard-copy newsletters, you’re looking at the cost of producing the newsletters and the cost of postage. In terms of labor costs, you won’t need an army of people to assemble each newsletter. You’ll need someone to curate content, ideally an administrative person who follows an agreed-upon process for vetting potential content for inclusion in a newsletter. You’ll also need an attorney who gives the final approval for including the “winning” pieces of content and writes short blurbs that explain the “so what” and “now what” of the topics of that content. And if an industry newsletter effort can’t get off the ground or build momentum, there will be minimal costs for an industry group to exit if it decides to shut down the newsletter. Subscriptions to email newsletter software can be canceled. Postage and production that would have otherwise been purchased to deliver future hard-copy issues will not be purchased. The Right Thought Leadership Tool for Attorneys Who Want to “Own” the Industries They Serve I’m always surprised by how many attorneys and law firm industry groups overlook industry newsletters as thought leadership tools. The irony is that so many attorneys and law firm executives subscribe to newsletters. They see firsthand, perhaps without realizing it, that published newsletters consistently position the sender as credible and authoritative on the topics they cover. If your industry group doesn’t have an industry newsletter already, it should be your group’s next thought leadership initiative.