Content Marketing

Why do law firm marketing teams spend too much time producing documents and not enough time driving growth? Expectations for law firm marketing teams are higher than ever. Marketers are expected to drive business development, boost the firm’s image, create strong thought leadership, deliver market and client insights, improve client experience, measure marketing performance, and help attorneys win new business, while also handling day-to-day requests. At the same time, they manage a large amount of production work. This includes updating pitch materials, formatting PowerPoint slides, revising proposals, keeping credentials current, and preparing marketing materials. Each task may seem manageable by itself, but together they add up to hundreds or even thousands of hours each year. The real cost is not just the time spent on these tasks. It’s also the important work marketing teams cannot do because they are busy with production. The Production Work That Quietly Consumes Marketing Few firms intentionally hire highly skilled marketing professionals to spend their days adjusting formatting, updating biographies, or correcting slide layouts. Yet these activities often become a large part of the daily routine. Consider a typical week: A partner asks for last-minute changes to a pitch deck. A proposal team needs attorney biographies refreshed before an RFP submission. A practice group asks for experience lists to be reformatted for a client meeting. A credentials database needs to be updated after lateral hires. Dozens of PowerPoint slides need branding and formatting before a board presentation. None of these requests are unnecessary, in fact, they’re essential. But these tasks are repetitive and often urgent, which pulls marketing professionals away from higher-value work. Death by a Thousand Requests Marketing leaders rarely face just one big project. Instead, they handle hundreds of small production requests, which makes them reactive instead of proactive. Creative projects, planning, and business development support often get delayed because urgent production work comes first. Over time, this becomes the normal way of working—not because it is the best method, but because it is the only way to keep up. The Opportunity Cost Is Often Invisible Production work requires more than just time; it also takes expertise. When senior marketing professionals spend hours formatting documents or putting together presentations, they are not: Creating campaigns that lead to new opportunities. Advising partners on business development strategy. Supporting cross-selling initiatives. Analyzing market trends. Creating thought leadership. Strengthening the firm’s brand. Building deeper client engagement programs. There is no question that production work must be done. The real issue is whether the firm’s most experienced marketing professionals should be the ones doing it. Four Areas Where Production Work Has the Biggest Impact Presentation production. PowerPoint remains one of the most important tools for business development in the professional services sector. Creating polished, ready-to-present slides often takes hours of formatting, aligning graphics, updating templates, and making revisions. A lot of this work is necessary, but it is not always strategic. Proposal revisions. Successful proposals rarely come together in one draft. The content develops over time, and partner feedback often arrives late. Client requirements change. Formatting shifts with every revision. The workload can be significant, especially for large projects with many contributors. Credential and experience management. Attorney biographies. Representative matters. Practice descriptions. Awards. Industry experience. Keeping these materials up to date is essential for business development, but it takes constant attention. Without good processes, outdated information can easily end up in client materials. Document formatting and brand consistency. Every client-facing document reflects the firm’s brand. Formatting may seem simple, but inconsistencies in typography, layout, graphics, and templates can hurt professionalism and create extra work. Maintaining quality across thousands of documents each year takes both good processes and expertise. Technology Helps, but It Doesn’t Solve the Problem AI and automation are reducing the time required for many production activities: Documents can be summarized Presentations drafted Images generated Templates populated Formatting accelerated These capabilities are helpful, but firms still need experienced professionals. Someone needs to make sure materials match the firm’s brand, use current information, meet client expectations, and send the right message. Human judgment is still key for quality, consistency, and strategy. The best marketing teams don’t replace people with technology. Instead, they use AI-powered workflows alongside skilled production specialists to work faster without sacrificing quality. A Better Operating Model for Law Firm Marketing More leading law firms are rethinking how they do marketing. They want to separate strategic marketing from high-volume production work. The goal is not to create silos or replace internal teams, but rather to make sure the right people use the right technology, so marketing professionals can focus on where they add the most value. Routine production work, including tasks like presentation development, document formatting, proposal support, credential management, and other high-volume marketing activities, can be streamlined through standardized workflows, AI-enabled tools, and experienced production specialists. Many firms are partnering with specialized marketing service providers that combine creative and design expertise, business services, and technology-enabled delivery to provide scalable support as an extension of their in-house team. This model lets companies increase capacity without hiring more staff. It also ensures production work is done efficiently, consistently, and to a high standard. Internal marketing and business development teams can fully focus on the initiatives that drive growth: shaping strategy, strengthening client relationships, supporting attorneys, developing campaigns, and identifying new business opportunities. The result is a more agile marketing team that can respond faster, support the business better, and have a bigger impact on the company’s growth. Moving Marketing up the Value Chain Production work will always be part of any marketing team. The goal is not to get rid of it, but to make sure it does not take up the time of those who can drive strategic impact. As AI and technology change marketing operations, the firms that benefit most will not just be those with the most automation. The real winners will be those who build a model where technology, skilled production staff, and strategic marketers each focus on what they do best. Key Takeaways Law firm marketing teams lose thousands of hours a year to formatting, proposal revisions, and credential updates that senior professionals were never hired to do. Because those tasks are usually urgent, marketing teams stay reactive and the campaigns, cross-selling support, and thought leadership get pushed aside. The fix is structural: pair AI-enabled workflows with dedicated production specialists so strategists can stay on strategy. 

Business development doesn’t always require a new strategy, a larger budget or another hire. Sometimes, it starts with a click. For many law firms, LinkedIn has become an essential marketing and business development platform. Firms invest significant time and resources creating thought leadership articles, client alerts, webinar promotions and firm announcements, yet one of the most effective ways to increase the reach of that content often costs nothing at all. Employee engagement. When attorneys and professional staff consistently like, comment on and share firm content, they do more than support the marketing department. They help introduce the firm’s work to new audiences, strengthen its credibility and expand its visibility beyond the firm’s own followers. For firms looking to maximize the value of their existing marketing efforts, encouraging internal engagement may be one of the simplest and most cost-effective business development strategies available. People Trust People More Than Pages Firm pages serve an important purpose, but people are far more likely to engage with content shared by someone they know. Whether it’s a partner commenting on a client alert, an associate sharing a webinar invitation or a member of the marketing team celebrating a firm accomplishment, those interactions feel personal. They carry an endorsement that a company page simply can’t replicate. That matters because every attorney has their own professional network of clients, referral sources, former colleagues, classmates and industry contacts. Those networks represent audiences the firm’s LinkedIn page may never reach on its own. When employees engage with firm content, they’re effectively opening another door into those professional relationships. How the LinkedIn Algorithm Works LinkedIn rewards engagement by showing activity to other users. When someone likes, comments on or shares a post, LinkedIn often surfaces that activity within the person’s network. As a result, the firm’s content appears before people who may not follow the firm’s page but are connected to the employee who engaged with it. Imagine two attorneys commenting on a new client alert discussing changes in employment law. Their activity may expose that article to hundreds or even thousands of additional professionals, many of whom never would have seen it otherwise. Every interaction creates another opportunity for a prospective client, referral source or future recruit to discover the firm’s work. The Notifications Effect Engagement also influences how LinkedIn decides which content deserves broader distribution. When multiple people interact with the same post, LinkedIn recognizes that activity as a signal that the content is relevant. The platform may then recommend the post to additional users or surface it more prominently in their feeds, even if they don’t follow the firm’s page. Unlike paid advertising, those recommendations appear organically through the platform, making them feel more authentic and increasing the likelihood that users will click through to learn more. Simply put, the more employees who engage with a post, the more opportunities LinkedIn has to introduce that content to new audiences. Why This Matters for Law Firms Law firms compete for attention every day. Prospective clients are researching legal issues. Referral sources are evaluating firms to recommend. Law students and lateral candidates are deciding where they want to build their careers. Many of those first impressions happen online. When attorneys actively engage with firm content, they help reinforce the firm’s experience and culture in a way that feels authentic. A client alert with thoughtful comments from attorneys demonstrates that the firm isn’t simply publishing content—its lawyers are actively discussing the issues that matter to clients. That visibility also supports recruiting efforts. Prospective employees often review a firm’s LinkedIn presence before applying. A page with active engagement from attorneys and staff signals a collaborative culture and demonstrates that employees take pride in the firm’s accomplishments. Building a Culture of Engagement Creating that visibility doesn’t require a formal social media campaign. Instead, firms should encourage attorneys and professional staff to make engagement part of their routine. Taking a few seconds to react to a post, leave a thoughtful comment or share content with a brief personal perspective can collectively have a significant impact on how far that content travels. Marketing teams can make participation easier by regularly sharing links to new posts internally, highlighting key messages employees may want to emphasize or drafting language to use, with a reminder to colleagues that even small interactions help amplify the firm’s voice. Key Takeaways Every firm wants its thought leadership, client alerts and announcements to reach the right audience. The good news is that firms already have one of the most effective tools for doing exactly that: their people. Encouraging attorneys and professional staff to actively engage with firm content isn’t simply a social media best practice. It’s a practical business development strategy that expands visibility, strengthens credibility and helps firms maximize the value of the content they’re already creating.

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.