There’s a new audience reading the thought leadership produced by attorneys and legal industry executives. The sooner they realize that and plan accordingly, the sooner they can take advantage of the opportunities this new audience offers. Attorneys and legal industry executives write their thought leadership for human readers. Makes perfect sense, right? Even with search engine optimization (SEO) driving how certain types of online content are written, attorneys and legal industry executives write thought leadership because it’s an effective way to position themselves as authorities. Thought leadership is about demonstrating knowledge and wisdom and providing insights to other humans. It’s not about writing content around specific keywords or trying to get to the top of Google search results. But times have changed. Today, the readers of thought leadership are no longer just humans. AI systems are now consuming thought leadership content at a scale that no human audience ever could. They’re evaluating our expertise, ranking our authority, summarizing our insights, and deciding whether our names and perspectives should appear first, fifth, or not at all when someone asks an AI platform to tell them who the “best” people are who do what we do, or asks questions that our published content could answer. And because of that, the legal industry’s traditional approach to publishing thought leadership is no longer enough. AI Platforms Are a New Thought Leadership Middleman One of the reasons thought leadership is and has been an effective marketing and business development tool is that no middleman filters its substance. Whether the thought leadership appeared in an email newsletter, a blog post, or a contributed article in a third-party publication, it was discoverable and digestible in its original form. When clients and referral sources discovered and digested thought leadership, they used it to evaluate the author’s expertise. They used it to determine who was knowledgeable and wise about the topics they covered in that thought leadership. They used it to decide whom to trust. They used it to decide whom to work with. But now AI sits between thought leaders and their audiences. It’s the new thought leadership middleman. It decides which content gets surfaced, summarized, or sidelined. AI platforms are shaping the visibility of attorneys, legal industry executives, and other professionals in the eyes of people using those platforms to find them. But many law firms and organizations that serve the legal industry don’t seem to realize what’s happening. They need to wake up, or they risk becoming invisible to AI platforms, leaving them invisible to clients, referral sources, and other target audiences. To be fair, searches on AI platforms pale in comparison to searches on Google. As of when I’m writing this, Google processes roughly 16.4 billion searches daily, while ChatGPT handles roughly 800 million AI searches. The latter’s share of searches is small (i.e., 4.9 percent). But an October 2025 Pew Research study found that users click links in search results 47% less when AI Overviews appear in Google results (8% click rate with AI Overviews vs 15% without). More concerning is that 26% of users end their browsing session after receiving AI-generated answers. That’s 63% higher than the 16% who end their sessions after a search when there are no AI Overviews. And therein lies the rub. Even though AI searches account for a relatively small (but growing) share of online searches, they often provide answers without citing the original source. Compare that to Google’s results, which, even when they display an AI overview at the top of the search results, will show a user links to other websites. If the user is searching for an answer to a question that’s answerable by thought leadership, the user could visit the websites where particular pieces of thought leadership live, consume that content, and find “new to them” thought leadership content creators whom they then follow-on social media, subscribe to their email newsletters, and/or generally become a new fan of. A New AI-Imposed Structure on Thought Leadership Much of the thought leadership published today is not structured in a way that AI will interpret as expert-authored. That’s not because the ideas in the thought leadership are weak; it’s because traditional thought leadership wasn’t designed to be evaluated the way AI platforms evaluate it today. AI penalizes vague structure, shallow analysis, and recycled summaries—traits that many pieces of thought leadership exhibit. AI rewards clarity, original insights, organized reasoning, and signals of genuine authority and expertise. In other words, AI is rewarding attorneys and legal industry executives who produce true thought leadership content—content that’s clear, original, organized, and shows that the author knows what they’re talking about. When we discuss structuring thought leadership on AI, we should briefly cover AEO, GEO, and AIO. AEO is “Answer Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content so it’s easily understood by search engines’ built-in AI, which then summarizes it in the “AI Summary” section of its search results and, hopefully, includes a citation so users can see the content’s source. GEO is “Generative Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content to increase its visibility in AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude. And finally, AIO is “Artificial Intelligence Optimization.” AIO is similar to GEO. It’s the process of writing and structuring content so AI platforms can more easily digest and understand it, and serve it up in answers to users’ questions. AEO, GEO, and AIO offer opportunities for law firms and organizations serving the legal industry to be first movers. The firms and organizations that produce thought leadership that appeals to both humans and AI platforms will be the ones that AI models reference in their results. The models will recognize the firms’ and organizations’ attorneys and leaders as trusted experts, cite their content more frequently, and recommend them as leaders in their fields more frequently. Time for Attorneys and Legal Industry Executives to Get in the Game Today, thought leadership has two audiences: humans and AI platforms. If an attorney’s or legal industry executives’ thought leadership doesn’t speak to both, they’re leaving visibility, credibility, and new business opportunities on the table. But these attorneys and executives can’t play the AEO, GEO, and AIO game, let alone the “produce thought leadership for humans to consume” game, if they’re not consistently producing thought leadership. They need to understand that, in today’s world, where AI is increasingly part of our everyday lives, building their authority—and perhaps a book of business—requires being seen as authoritative by both humans and AI platforms. The most effective path to getting there is by regularly publishing thought leadership, whether by taking the time to write it themselves, working with an associate or another colleague, or hiring an outside ghostwriter. 

Generating business is a priority for almost all law firms, especially small and solo practices. Sure, it’s nice for your website to get lots of views, but the end goal of your marketing efforts is to help the people you can best help connect with and become clients of your practice. It’s frustrating and disheartening to prepare for a scheduled consultation only to have a prospective client cancel at the last minute, or worse, simply fail to show up. Lead magnets can improve lead quality by educating prospective clients beforehand and building trust. When a prospective client has learned something useful from your firm, even before speaking to you, a consultation feels like a continuation of the value they’ve already received. That’s likely to increase their commitment and follow-through. What is a Lead Magnet? A lead magnet is something of value that you offer in exchange for the person’s contact information. It’s not a sales pitch or promotional material; it’s something your audience perceives as a benefit. Ideally, a lead magnet is genuinely useful content that answers a specific question or solves a problem. If you’ve ever been online and clicked a button to get a free downloadable guide or eBook, you’ve been attracted by a lead magnet. Chances are that the offer addressed a particular need, interest, or pain point of yours. You can do the same for the people you hope will become your clients. Seven Effective Law Firm Lead Magnets When someone is facing a legal issue, they are often navigating uncharted territory. The legal knowledge you have can help them feel more in control of their situation. A lead magnet allows them to “sample” your knowledge with very little investment, boosts your credibility, and encourages them to come back for more. Some of the most effective law firm lead magnets include:  eBooks: An eBook is an in-depth electronic guide that covers a legal topic, such as “Everything You Need to Know About Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy” or “A Guide to Estate Planning for New Families.” eBooks are designed to educate, often for a broader audience, and are good for building awareness and credibility. Whitepapers: Structured and research-driven, whitepapers analyze a legal issue in depth. They often provide statistics, data, and citations and are geared toward a more sophisticated audience. Whitepapers are good lead magnets for firms that want to demonstrate thought leadership, especially in technical or regulatory practice areas. Downloadable Guides: Downloadable guides are similar to eBooks but tend to be shorter and narrower in scope. They are often built around a specific problem or decision, e.g., “What to Do After a Loved One’s Death.” While an eBook generally says, “Here’s what you need to know,” a downloadable guide says, “Here’s what you need to do right now.” Downloadable Checklists: There’s a certain satisfaction in checking items off a list, especially for people facing an unfamiliar legal problem who want to know they’re on the right track. Checklists like “Documents to Bring to Your First Estate Planning Appointment” or “Seven Things to Do Before You File for Divorce” help users feel organized and in control. Exclusive Webinars: Whether live and interactive or pre-recorded, webinars are a popular and effective lead magnet. Many people appreciate learning by video, and actually seeing and hearing the attorney humanizes them and helps build trust. People also tend not to attend webinars unless the issue is timely for them, so webinar attendees may be higher-intent leads. Case Studies: A case study is an account of a real matter (often with identifying details changed) that describes a legal issue the client faced, the strategic decisions the firm made, any obstacles encountered, and how they were addressed, and the outcome. Case studies signal experience with certain scenarios and reassure prospects that the firm has successfully handled cases like theirs. Templates: When used properly, downloadable templates can be highly effective lead magnets. They work best when they help leads organize information and identify areas of concern, such as an “Incident and Timeline Organizer.” Templates are best as lead magnets when they help prospects identify knowledge gaps and the need for an attorney’s help to move forward. The right lead magnets for your law firm depend on your goals, practice areas, and target audiences. It’s likely you will want multiple magnets in play for clients with different needs or people at different stages of the sales funnel. Paige Silver-Dunn, Director of Marketing for The Modern Firm, counsels attorneys to put themselves in their clients’ shoes when planning lead magnets: which topics and formats would they likely take the trouble to download? Getting the Most Out of Your Lead Magnets Unlock the full potential of your lead magnets by observing these best practices: Pay attention to both form and substance. Naturally, your lead magnets should provide genuinely helpful information; otherwise, the people who downloaded them won’t see the value in contacting you for more. But don’t underestimate the value of having an attractive, well-designed document or infographic bearing your law firm’s logo and branding. A polished appearance makes the lead magnet feel more valuable and makes your firm look more legitimate and trustworthy. Make access easy. How many times have you gone to take an action online, only to give up because you were asked to take one too many steps or provide more information than you were comfortable sharing? It’s the same for your prospective clients, so don’t make it inconvenient for them. Ask only for the minimum information you need, and make it convenient for them to provide their information. Nurture the leads you’ve gathered. The purpose of a lead magnet is to attract high-quality leads; don’t just let those leads languish! Keep in touch through appropriate lead nurturing. Lead nurturing keeps your firm top-of-mind for prospects early in the sales funnel, and continues to build trust and showcase your knowledge for those who are closer to hiring a law firm. Segment your contact lists. Your lead magnets may attract different pools of potential clients. An estate law firm, for example, might get contact information from young families making their first estate plan, older couples who need to update a plan, and people facing probate. Segment contact lists so targeted messages reach the right people. Not only would an email about “securing your baby’s future” be irrelevant to an elderly widow, but it also comes across as insensitive, signaling a lack of understanding of her situation and needs. Switch up your lead magnets. Lead magnets, like many aspects of law firm marketing, aren’t “set it and forget it.” It’s important to refresh your lead magnets from time to time, because stale or repeated content loses impact. Updating your materials ensures that your offers stay relevant to your target audience and ultimately attract prospects who are better matched and more committed to following through with services. Key Takeaways Lead magnets motivate prospects to share contact information in exchange for value A lead magnet is not a sales pitch; it’s a useful resource to attract potential new leads There are a variety of options for lead magnets, from downloadable checklists to eBooks to webinars Once you’ve acquired leads from this marketing avenue, be sure to nurture them

Most B2B law firms have a prioritization problem. Marketing teams create content, host events, and track engagement. Business development professionals cultivate relationships, respond to RFPs, and pursue target accounts. But in too many firms, these functions operate in parallel rather than in unison, leaving valuable intelligence stranded in marketing’s domain while BD makes outreach decisions based on disconnected information, rather than insight. This isn’t news to anyone who’s worked in legal marketing. Marketing handles brand, content, and events. BD supports partners in client acquisition. The two functions intersect at necessary intervals, then retreat to their respective silos. The result: marketing struggles to demonstrate ROI because it’s removed from the revenue engine, and BD operates without the engagement intelligence that could sharpen their focus. Lead scoring offers a bridge between these worlds—not by qualifying inbound leads, but by helping marketing surface which targets, clients, and prospects deserve BD attention right now. Reframing Lead Scoring for Law Firms: The B2B Reality The opportunity for B2B law firms lies in using engagement data to prioritize where BD should focus proactive outreach, not just who responded to a campaign. Think of it as turning static target lists into dynamic priority queues. Three use cases make lead scoring valuable for B2B legal marketing: prioritizing target prospect lists, identifying cross-sell opportunities with existing clients, and flagging dormant relationships ready for reactivation. In each case, marketing contributes concrete intelligence that BD can act on immediately. What Data Can Marketing Actually Access? Before building a scoring model, take inventory of the signals you can realistically track. Most firms have more data than they realize—it’s just scattered across platforms and disconnected from BD workflows. Website engagement shows who’s visiting, what pages interest them, and how often they return. Your CRM captures relationship history, past matters, and current touchpoints. Email platforms track opens, clicks, and replies across campaigns. Event management systems record attendance and session interests. And increasingly, optimized intake and CRM systems can consolidate these signals into actionable intelligence. The key isn’t having perfect data. It’s aggregating what you have into patterns that BD can act on. Building a Lead Scoring Framework for Target Prospects Start with the list of companies your firm wants to pursue—the targets BD has identified as ideal clients. Without engagement data, that list sits static because there’s no systematic way to know which targets are showing interest right now. Lead scoring transforms that static list into a dynamic priority queue by layering engagement signals on top of firmographic fit. Engagement Signals Worth Tracking Not all engagement carries equal weight. A prospect who visited your homepage once matters less than one whose team members keep returning to your Intellectual Property practice page and downloading transaction-related content. Consider weighting signals like this: Multiple website visits from the same company domain (+15 points) Practice area page views aligned with your capabilities (+10 points) Content downloads, especially bottom-funnel assets like case studies (+20 points) Webinar or event attendance (+15 points) Multiple individuals from the same company engaging (+25 points—this signals organizational interest rather than individual curiosity) Industry trigger events like M&A announcements, leadership changes, or regulatory developments (+20 points) The specific point values matter less than the relative weighting. High-intent behaviors—actions that suggest genuine interest in hiring counsel—should count more than passive engagement. Firmographic Fit Criteria Engagement alone doesn’t make someone a good prospect. Layer firmographic fit criteria into your scoring model to ensure high scores represent genuinely valuable opportunities: Company size and revenue band matching your ideal client profile (+15 points) Industry alignment with your practice expertise (+10 points) Geographic footprint you can serve (+10 points) Known legal needs or challenges in your wheelhouse (+15 points) Negative scoring matters too. Subtract points for disqualifying factors—too small, wrong industry, known existing counsel relationship—so your hot list stays focused on realistic opportunities. Prioritizing Existing Clients for Cross-Sell Opportunities The data consistently shows that revenue concentration is both the strength and vulnerability of most law firms. As industry research indicates, 80% of revenue often comes from 20% of clients—yet most firms leave substantial cross-sell opportunities untapped. The challenge isn’t recognizing that cross-selling matters. It’s knowing which clients are ready for expanded conversations and when to initiate them. Marketing can surface these opportunities by applying the same engagement intelligence used for prospects. Signals That Indicate Cross-Sell Readiness When a client who works with your employment group starts engaging with content from your corporate practice, that’s a signal worth noticing. When new contacts from different departments at the same client organization begin visiting your website, something’s happening in that company that might require additional legal support. Watch for these cross-sell indicators: Engagement with content outside their current practice area relationship (+20 points) Website visits to practice pages they don’t currently use (+15 points) New contacts from different departments engaging with firm content (+25 points) Industry news suggesting new legal needs—regulatory changes, expansion plans, transaction activity Billing data showing matter completion, which creates natural timing for “what’s next” conversations The goal isn’t to bombard clients with cross-sell pitches. It’s to ensure that when a client has emerging needs outside their current practice area relationship, your firm is positioned to discuss solutions before they start looking elsewhere. Reactivating Dormant Relationships Former clients and old prospects represent untapped opportunities precisely because they already know your firm. The relationship may have gone quiet due to timing, budget constraints, or a shift in their legal needs—not necessarily dissatisfaction. Lead scoring can identify when dormant relationships show renewed interest, creating natural opportunities for reconnection. Reactivation Triggers to Monitor A prospect who ghosted 18 months ago, but just downloaded your data privacy and cybersecurity guide deserves fresh outreach. A former client whose successor started engaging with your content might be reconsidering their counsel relationships. Track these reactivation triggers: Website return visits after extended inactivity (+15 points) Content engagement after dormancy (+20 points) Event registration from a contact who went cold (+15 points) New stakeholders from a dormant account engaging (+20 points) Industry changes affecting their business that create new legal needs The difference between a cold call and a warm re-engagement is often just a matter of timing. Lead scoring helps you identify the right moment. Making This Work Without the Perfect Infrastructure Most law firms don’t have enterprise marketing automation platforms. Many run on disconnected systems—one CRM (often underutilized), basic email marketing, Google Analytics, and maybe an event management tool. That’s okay. Lead scoring doesn’t require sophisticated technology. It requires intentional data collection, consistency, and discipline. Start with what you have. CRM data, combined with Google Analytics and your email platform, provide meaningful engagement signals. Even a spreadsheet-based scoring model adds value if it surfaces actionable priorities that BD can act on. The goal isn’t perfect data science. It’s giving BD a weekly or monthly “hot list” of prioritized targets based on observed engagement—replacing intuition-based outreach with signal-informed prioritization. Lead Scoring for Law Firms: A Simple Implementation Path If you’re starting from scratch, take it step by step: Step 1: Define 5-7 engagement signals you can actually track today with your current tools. Step 2: Assign point values, weighting high-intent behaviors more heavily than passive engagement. Step 3: Overlay scoring on your existing target list and client roster. Step 4: Generate a prioritized report for BD on a regular cadence—weekly or biweekly works for most firms. Step 5: Track outcomes. Did BD follow up on the hot list? Did those follow-ups lead to conversations or opportunities? Then iterate based on what actually predicts success. If certain signals consistently correlate with new matters or expanded relationships, weight them more heavily. If others prove meaningless, deprioritize or eliminate them. Bridging the Marketing-BD Gap Lead scoring gives marketing something BD values immediately: prioritized intelligence that sharpens outreach decisions. That’s different from brand campaigns or thought leadership initiatives, which require longer timeframes to demonstrate impact. Regular “hot list” delivery creates a feedback loop. BD reports what worked—which targets responded, which conversations progressed—and marketing refines the model accordingly. Over time, this builds the case for deeper marketing-BD integration based on demonstrated value rather than theoretical alignment. The firms that thrive are those that move from siloed functions to shared accountability for pipeline growth. Tracking marketing ROI becomes possible when marketing contributes intelligence that directly influences revenue-generating activity. Lead scoring won’t solve every alignment challenge between marketing and BD. But it provides a concrete starting point—a deliverable that demonstrates marketing’s value to business development and creates opportunities for ongoing collaboration. Start with the data you have. Focus on the signals that matter. Deliver intelligence that BD can use. The sophistication can come later. The value starts now.

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. 

A well-respected law firm CMO asked me recently: “What makes an effective business development plan for a lawyer?” At first blush, that seems like a simple question, but the more I thought about it, the less simple it became. I’d be curious to hear others’ views, but I ultimately landed here: An effective business development plan acknowledges the complexity of law firm sales and sweats the details. Call it sales management. To understand why detail-management matters so much, it helps to look at how sales experts define what we’re dealing with. Miller Heiman, one of the pioneering professional-services sales organizations, defines a complex sale this way (my paraphrasing): it unfolds over months or even years, involves multiple stakeholders, and requires hundreds of interdependent actions. Those actions must be identified, sequenced correctly, and completed on time. Miss or delay one step, and the pursuit can stall. Miss steps often enough, and the whole effort can crater. That’s why, in my opinion, accountability in complex sales must be binary. Every participant is given defined responsibilities, and for each, performance is judged simply by this: You had a task. Did you do it, yes or no? Consider some of those hundreds of interdependent actions. Did you: Make the phone call? Complete a business and competitive intelligence dossier? Schedule the conference room? Notice and share information about an industry development? Monitor the client’s stock price today? Give to the client’s favorite charity? Each task is small on its own. Together, they create a level of complexity that demands expert management. No matter how capable or motivated they are, most lawyer ... and, candidly, most professional staff under current firm structures ... don’t have the bandwidth, specialized expertise, or temperament required to oversee undertakings of this scale. But it would be wise to understand and emulate how parallel organizations have addressed the need. For years, the Big Four accounting firms and major management consulting firms have employed client-facing senior sales managers whose sole job is to oversee complex pursuits and client expansions. These are not junior coordinators, but rather seasoned professionals who design pursuit strategy, sequence actions, assign responsibilities, and enforce deadlines. Under this scenario, partners, as owners of the business, remain responsible for the legal work and for the overall pursuit, but execution is tightly managed by sales experts and business administrators. Law firms are now edging in the same direction. Some have invested in client or pursuit managers or senior BD leadership. Others are experimenting at the practice-group level. The direction of travel is clear: complexity demands professional management. What Most Firms Can Do Right Now Most firms don’t have Big Four-style sales leadership, and likely won’t anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean they’re stuck. Firm leadership can dramatically improve outcomes by introducing structure and discipline through four practical steps. First, appoint a pursuit owner. Every major opportunity should have one person responsible for execution: someone who sweats the details and tracks tasks, deadlines, and dependencies. And, if possible, that person should be someone other than an attorney, given the client-service responsibilities that only lawyers can provide and which can create bottlenecks impairing the entire pursuit. Second, standardize pursuit playbooks. Define required steps for complex opportunities: research, stakeholder mapping, content development, internal reviews, and follow-ups. Make them mandatory and uniform across the firm so that all personnel speak the same sales language. Third, make accountability explicit. Tasks should be assigned to named individuals with deadlines and measurable outcomes that can be answered “yes” or “no.” No shared ownership. No ambiguity. Fourth, review every major pursuit. Not just wins and losses, but process shortcomings and successes. Of course, examine what didn’t work: missed steps, unclear ownership, stalled momentum. Then, make room for celebration of what DID work: timely internal reviews, strong cross-practice collaboration, early client engagement, or crisp follow-up execution. This last point deserves emphasis: professionals involved in the grueling nature of large campaigns can become discouraged during long pursuits. Recognizing successful completion of interim tasks (even seemingly the smallest ones) and moving one step forward at a time creates positive energy, builds momentum, and reinforces the belief that a signed engagement letter, even if still months away, is achievable. Process reviews aren’t just about fixing problems; they’re about sustaining the human beings doing the work. The Outsourcing Option Increasingly, firms are outsourcing parts of this work. Standard pursuit components, such as research, competitive intelligence, pitch coordination, CRM hygiene, and even door-opening and pursuit management, can be handled by external specialists. For firms that cannot justify full-time senior sales leadership, outsourcing provides access to the same discipline, absent the headcount. It allows firms to professionalize their sales execution before making permanent investments. And it allows resource-constrained firms, especially small and middle-market firms, to compete effectively as never before. Artificial Intelligence tools are accelerating this trend. External partners can now leverage AI to accelerate research synthesis, improve consistent competitive monitoring, and streamline CRM maintenance—tasks that once required significant staff time. However, the strategic judgment calls—which opportunities to pursue, how to position against competitors, when to escalate client engagement—still require experienced human oversight. The firms seeing the best results are those combining AI efficiency with seasoned pursuit management, whether in-house or outsourced. Why BD Plans Fail Understanding what makes plans effective means recognizing what makes them fail. The most common failure modes I’ve observed include pursuit ownership that’s shared (which means no one owns it), playbooks that exist but aren’t enforced, accountability structures that allow “partial credit” rather than demanding yes-or-no answers, and reviews that only happen after wins or losses rather than continuously throughout pursuits. The bottom line: the most important component of business development effectiveness is understanding the complexity of law firm sales efforts and ensuring that pursuits and client expansions are guided by discipline and management. The specific mechanism—whether Big Four-style sales leadership, the pursuit of owners with standardized playbooks, or outsourced specialists supported by AI—matters less than the commitment to professional execution. I’d be interested in other perspectives. What, to you, characterizes effective business development planning? What makes it work…or not?