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.

“How We Did It” articles are quintessential thought leadership pieces. Here’s how to decide what to cover in your next one. Any favorable result you secure for a client in litigation can be the basis for a thought leadership article. Whether you’re discussing a favorable verdict, settlement, or summary judgment decision, you’re taking readers behind the scenes and showing them how you overcame certain obstacles to secure that result for your client. These “How We Did It” articles are quintessential thought leadership pieces. It doesn’t matter if you’re a plaintiffs’ attorney or a defense attorney. Explaining how you overcame obstacles in litigation to secure a favorable result for a client demonstrates your knowledge and wisdom in action, positioning you as the attorney that past, current, or potential clients or referral sources would be foolish not to reach out to if they or someone they know has a similar legal or business issue. The Simple Structure of a “How We Did It” Article “How We Did It” articles follow a straightforward format: First: the introduction. You’ll set the scene and provide context regarding the case and posture. Next: the meat of the article. You’ll describe three to five obstacles you faced over the course of the litigation, including during discovery, mediation, settlement, and/or trial, and explain how you overcame them. In a moment, I’ll walk through 36 questions that will help you and your colleagues identify the obstacles you might want to discuss in the article. Finally: the conclusion. You’ll wrap up the outcome and provide additional insights if needed. A Few Caveats Regarding “How We Did It” Articles “How We Did It” articles focus on the advice you gave your clients. That could be an issue for some attorneys who aren’t comfortable or familiar with writing articles for public consumption regarding the counsel they gave clients. Those attorneys—and everyone else—should keep the following caveats/reminders in mind when writing “How We Did It” articles. First, you can discuss how you overcame obstacles without divulging privileged or confidential information. That said, be careful you’re not inadvertently disclosing information that falls into either bucket. Second, there’s no need to reveal truly proprietary processes that you employ, even if they technically fall outside of privileged or confidential protections. You can mention that you have a proprietary process for evaluating experts, running focus groups, etc., but you needn’t go into the details of those processes that you would like to keep confidential. Third, you’ll likely be talking a fair amount about actions you took that have been captured, discussed, or reflected in public court filings; non-confidential litigation materials, such as correspondence and deposition transcripts; and court hearings that are open to the public. There should be plenty of things for you to discuss that won’t be affected by concerns about privilege, confidentiality, or your proprietary processes, since they’ve already been made public. With these caveats in mind, let’s explore the questions that will help identify the obstacles worth discussing in any “How We Did It” article. The 36 Questions That Fuel “How We Did It” Thought Leadership Articles Your answers to 3 to 5 of the following 36 questions, which are grouped by litigation phases, will give you and your colleagues food for thought for obstacles to write about in your “How We Did It” article. The Big Picture (6 questions) 1.Where was the case most vulnerable? 2. Which issues required the most creativity to resolve? 3. Where did experience—and not just hard work—make a difference? 4. Was there an obstacle that most attorneys may have underestimated? 5. Was there a misconception about litigating against certain entities that you had to overcome? 6. Did you face challenges regarding co-counsel, conflicts, or opposing counsel? Pre-suit Investigation and Case Intake (4 questions) These tend to lean more toward the plaintiff’s side, except for #10: 7. Did you face challenges in unearthing certain facts or documents? 8. Did you face challenges corroborating older allegations? 9. Was there statute of limitations concerns? 10. Was there any resistance from the client that made building or defending the case complex? Drafting and Filing a Complaint (3 questions) Again, these tend to lean more toward the plaintiff’s side. 11. Did you face challenges pleading with certain facts? 12. Did you face challenges deciding which causes of action to include? 13. Did you face challenges avoiding causes of action that would be easily knocked out by certain defenses? Early Motion Practice (1 question) 14. Did you face challenges regarding early motions, dispositive or otherwise? Discovery (3 questions) 15. Did you face challenges with document discovery? 16. Did you face challenges with depositions? 17. Did you face challenges maintaining confidentiality or getting around confidentiality concerns? Experts (2 questions) 18. Did you face challenges with your own experts? 19. Did you face challenges or obstacles when dealing with opposing experts? Summary Judgment (1 question) 20. Did you face challenges with summary judgment motions—whether with yours or opposing the other sides? Mediation (1 question) 21. Did you face challenges with the mediation process? Settlement (1 question) 22. Did you face challenges regarding the settlement process, such as negotiating terms, or drafting the settlement agreement and releases? Trial Preparation (5 questions) 23. Did you face challenges with pretrial motion practice, including pretrial evidentiary rulings? 24. Did you face challenges preparing your client to testify? 25. Did you face challenges preparing other witnesses to testify? 26. Did you face challenges planning your trial presentation? Trial (10 questions) 27. Did you face challenges choosing a jury? 28. Did you face challenges with how the trial began, such as with rulings from the court or your or the opposing side’s opening arguments? 29. Did you face challenges with any of your direct examinations? 30. Did you face challenges with your cross-examinations? 31. Did you face challenges caused by the other side’s direct examinations or cross-examinations? 32. Did you face challenges with trial exhibits? 33. Did you face challenges with your or the opposing side’s closing arguments? 34. Did you face challenges with the jury’s deliberations? 35. Did you face challenges with any post-verdict motions? 36. Did you face challenges with trial publicity? Putting It All Together These 36 questions should get your and your colleagues’ gears turning regarding the obstacles you faced on the way to securing a favorable litigation result for your client. Not every question will apply to a particular litigation, and that’s fine. Your goal is to identify the 3–5 most compelling obstacles that will form the core of your article. By the way, if you’re curious about what makes a particular obstacle and how you overcame it compelling, here’s what I would look for: The obstacle required a creative or innovative approach, which included an element of boldness or counter-intuitiveness Experience played a key role in overcoming the obstacle The obstacle is one likely to be faced by other clients/litigants As you write “How We Did It” articles, you might discover more questions you can add to this list to help get your creative juices flowing in the future. But as is, this list of 36 questions should give you plenty of inspiration for your next “How We Did It” article.

Patients who were prescribed Ozempic (semaglutide), Wegovy (semaglutide), Mounjaro (tirzepatide), or other GLP-1 receptor agonist medications to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight loss may be at risk of vision loss or blindness from a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). GLP-1 receptor agonists are among the most widely prescribed medications in the United States for managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. Drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, and Zepbound have gained widespread popularity due to their ability to regulate blood sugar levels and promote weight loss. However, recent scientific studies and legal claims have raised questions about whether these medications may increase the risk of sudden optic nerve damage and NAION vision loss in some patients. As new research and lawsuits continue to emerge, patients and healthcare providers are paying closer attention to reports linking these widely used diabetes and weight loss medications to an increased risk of NAION. GLP-1 users who were diagnosed with NAION or who have experienced vision problems after taking these drugs can contact an experienced product liability attorney to find out whether they qualify to take legal action. Understanding NAION and Sudden Vision Loss Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is a condition caused by reduced blood flow to the optic nerve. The optic nerve plays a critical role in transmitting visual information from the eye to the brain. When blood circulation to this nerve is disrupted, permanent damage may occur. NAION often develops suddenly and typically affects one eye, although it may later involve both eyes. Patients frequently report waking up with blurred vision, darkened areas in their field of vision, or significant vision loss without warning. In many cases, the damage to the optic nerve is permanent. While NAION has historically been associated with underlying vascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, or sleep apnea, researchers have recently begun investigating whether certain medications, including Ozempic or other GLP-1 agonists, may also contribute to the condition. Patients seeking additional information can review frequently asked questions about GLP-1 drugs and NAION vision loss to better understand symptoms, diagnosis, and potential legal claims. Research Examining GLP-1 Drugs and NAION Risk Growing attention to the potential connection between GLP-1 medications and NAION has been fueled by emerging medical research. Several studies have examined whether drugs containing semaglutide or similar compounds may increase the likelihood of optic nerve damage. Researchers have noted that patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists appeared to experience NAION at higher rates than those taking other diabetes medications. Although further research is still ongoing, these findings have prompted increased scrutiny within the medical community. The possible mechanisms behind this risk remain under investigation. Some studies investigating the link between GLP-1s and NAION have concluded that changes in blood flow or vascular regulation associated with GLP-1 medications may contribute to reduced circulation in the optic nerve. Others have suggested that rapid metabolic or cardiovascular changes triggered by these drugs could play a role in certain patients. At this stage, scientists have not reached a definitive conclusion about causation. However, the potential association has been strong enough to generate both medical concern and legal action. GLP-1 Medications Involved in Vision Loss Claims Although Ozempic has received the most public attention, several GLP-1 medications are being examined in connection with NAION reports. These drugs share similar mechanisms of action and are often prescribed for diabetes or weight management. Medications frequently referenced in these discussions include: Ozempic (semaglutide) Wegovy (semaglutide) Rybelsus (semaglutide) Mounjaro (tirzepatide) Zepbound (tirzepatide) Because these medications work by activating GLP-1 receptors that regulate blood sugar and appetite, researchers are evaluating whether their biological effects could influence blood flow in sensitive tissues such as the optic nerve. Patients who experience sudden vision loss while taking these medications may wish to seek medical evaluation promptly, as early diagnosis can help physicians determine the cause of optic nerve damage. Emerging Litigation Over GLP-1 Drugs and NAION Vision Loss As reports of NAION among users of GLP-1 medications have increased, lawsuits have begun to emerge across the United States involving drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and other medications in the same class. These lawsuits generally allege that manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about a potential risk of sudden vision loss associated with these widely prescribed diabetes and weight loss treatments. Product liability claims involving prescription medications often focus on whether drug manufacturers provided sufficient safety information about known or reasonably foreseeable risks. In GLP-1 vision loss cases, plaintiffs typically argue that stronger warnings about possible optic nerve injury or NAION could have influenced treatment decisions made by physicians and patients. As the number of lawsuits has grown, federal courts have begun coordinating the litigation. GLP-1 vision loss claims involving NAION have been consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Multidistrict litigation, commonly known as MDL, allows courts to centralize similar lawsuits before one judge in order to coordinate discovery, address common legal issues, and manage complex pharmaceutical litigation more efficiently. The creation of the federal MDL reflects the increasing number of claims involving GLP-1 medications and alleged vision loss injuries. When cases involving the same drugs and similar medical conditions are filed in multiple federal courts, MDL consolidation can help streamline the litigation process while allowing individual plaintiffs to pursue their claims. As additional lawsuits continue to be filed by patients who experienced NAION after using GLP-1 medications, the federal MDL will likely play a central role in shaping how these claims proceed through the court system. Patients who believe they may qualify to file an Ozempic or GLP-1 vision loss lawsuit can speak with a law firm that handles mass tort claims to find out more about how the MDL may affect their ability to take legal action. Legal Options for Ozempic and GLP-1 Users Diagnosed With NAION Patients who take GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes or weight loss should not discontinue prescribed medications without consulting their healthcare providers. For many individuals, these drugs provide significant medical benefits. However, patients should be aware of potential warning signs of NAION and seek medical attention if sudden vision changes occur. Symptoms may include blurred vision, dark areas in the visual field, reduced contrast sensitivity, or unexplained vision loss in one eye. Early evaluation by an ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist can help determine whether optic nerve damage has occurred and identify possible underlying causes.  As research and litigation continue to develop, courts and medical experts will play a key role in evaluating the evidence surrounding GLP-1 drugs and NAION. For patients affected by sudden optic nerve injury, understanding both the medical and legal aspects of these developments may be an important step in assessing available options. Individuals who developed NAION after using Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, or other GLP-1 medications may also wish to consult with an experienced product liability attorney. An attorney can review medical records, medication history, and other evidence to determine whether a legal claim related to potential drug-induced vision loss may be viable.

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.