Industry Insight

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Amezcua v. The Superior Court of San Diego County (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 1141733: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate that reversed in part the trial court’s order conditionally granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her first amended complaint (in response to a demurrer) in her wrongful termination and wage and hour action, conditioned upon the payment by plaintiff of $25,000 in attorney fees to defendant (and real party in interest Massage Envy Franchising, LLC). The trial court relied sua sponte on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a), finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately explain why she had not earlier amended her complaint to add substantive allegations against defendant and had acted contrary to the purpose of the meet-and-confer requirements. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and granted plaintiff’s writ petition and directed the trial court to strike the attorney fee payment condition from its order, holding that section 473 does not authorize fee-shifting as a condition of leave to amend and that, under the American rule codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, courts may only award attorney fees pursuant to specific statutory authority or party agreement—neither of which was present here—and that the statutes permitting fee sanctions (sections 128.5 and 128.7) were not invoked and their procedural safeguards were not followed. (C.A. 4th, April 24, 2026.) Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 836484: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred in prosecuting a “tort of another” action against individual tortfeasors after it had already been awarded attorney fees in the underlying specific performance action against the defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that attorney fees incurred in an action against the tortfeasor to recover fees awarded under the underlying “tort of another doctrine” do not fall within any recognized exception to the general rule that each party must bear their own legal fees. (C.A. 1st, March 26, 2026.) Employment Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees’ Retirement System (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 458134: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn defendant’s denial of his disability retirement application. While under investigation for on-duty misconduct, plaintiff (a parole agent) applied for service retirement, pending a claim for disability retirement. His application was accepted, and he was thereafter found ineligible for a disability retirement because his departure was not related to a disability and occurred while he was under investigation for misconduct. Defendant’s CalPERS Board of Administration affirmed the denial because a prerequisite for a disability retirement was lacking: the right to return to service. The trial court denied plaintiff’s writ petition, agreeing that plaintiff was barred from applying for disability retirement benefits after he service retired while under investigation for on-duty misconduct. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff’s service retirement while under investigation for misconduct constituted a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship, eliminating the necessary prerequisite for disability retirement—the right to potential reinstatement—and therefore rendered him ineligible for disability retirement benefits regardless of whether his departure was characterized as a service retirement or a termination for cause. (C.A. 2nd, filed February 28, 2026, published March 11, 2026.)

Most law firms are trying to apply a last-click attribution framework to a business development cycle that doesn’t work that way. A corporate prospect doesn’t see a blog post, click a CTA, and retain the firm the same afternoon. They encounter the firm’s name in a search result, read an attorney’s byline in a trade publication months later, hear the firm mentioned by a peer at a conference, and then reach out—through a referral. Marketing touched every stage of that journey. The referral gets all the credit. Only 18% of law firms use multi-touch attribution to fully understand campaign performance, and 22% report difficulty measuring marketing results at all. The instinct is to assume those firms need better technology—a more sophisticated CRM, call tracking software, tighter UTM parameters. But the tools aren’t the problem. The model is. Until firms stop trying to force a direct-response attribution model onto a relationship-driven BD cycle, this conversation will keep stalling. Why Traditional Attribution Models Fail in Legal The attribution models most firms have borrowed—from e-commerce, from B2B SaaS, from digital agency playbooks—were built for shorter sales cycles with cleaner conversion paths. They don’t translate to the way law firms develop business. The Long Conversion Window Corporate and transactional BD cycles frequently run 6–18 months (or more) from first touchpoint to retained engagement. A prospect may interact with your firm’s content, reputation, and digital presence across dozens of touchpoints before a conversation ever happens, and most analytics platforms lose that thread long before the handshake. By the time a new client signs, the content that sparked the initial awareness may be over a year old and invisible to standard reporting. The “We Get All Our Business From Referrals” Myth In most firms, partners credit referrals for new business. That’s not wrong. But it is incomplete. The referral itself was almost always influenced by marketing: the referring attorney saw the firm’s thought leadership and remembered the name; the prospective client Googled the firm after hearing the recommendation and found authoritative practice pages; the firm’s visibility in AI search results reinforced the suggestion at exactly the right moment. Marketing doesn’t replace referrals. Rather, it activates and validates them. But last-touch attribution gives the referral 100% of the credit and marketing 0%. Over time, this creates a destructive cycle: marketing can’t demonstrate value, budgets get cut, and the visibility that was supporting BD in ways no one was measuring disappears. The Multi-Stakeholder Problem Law firm buying decisions, especially when considering mid-size and large firms, typically involve multiple decision-makers. A general counsel, a deputy GC, an outside counsel guidelines committee. Each may interact with different marketing touchpoints at different times. Single-user tracking models can’t capture this. A Google Analytics session belongs to one person; a BD relationship belongs to an organization. A Better Framework: Measuring Marketing Influence, Not Marketing Credit The shift in framing matters: stop trying to give marketing “credit” for wins. Start building a framework that measures marketing’s influence across the full BD journey. The question isn’t “which client came from marketing?” The question is “what percentage of our new matters had marketing touchpoints somewhere in the BD journey?” That question is answerable—and the answer is persuasive. Here’s a four-layer framework for getting there. Layer 1: Visibility Metrics (Did They Find Us?) Visibility metrics track whether marketing is creating the conditions for discovery: Organic search rankings AI citation presence in tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity Share of voice in target practice areas Branded search volume trends These don’t prove revenue in isolation, but they prove that the firm is showing up in the places prospects and referral sources look when they’re evaluating options, which is the prerequisite for everything else. Set a baseline and track trends over time. If branded search volume increases 30% over six months while BD activity also rises, that’s a meaningful correlation even without direct attribution. It tells a story about momentum. Layer 2: Engagement Metrics (Did They Validate Us?) This is the validation layer, i.e. what happens after someone hears about the firm. Track attorney bio page views by practice area, practice page engagement depth, content downloads, newsletter signups, and repeat visits from target accounts or organizations. When a prospect receives a referral, their next step is almost always to research the firm digitally. Your website and digital presence become the validation step. If engagement metrics spike in the same periods that BD conversations are opening, marketing is doing its job, even if the prospect didn’t come in through marketing monitored-entry points. Layer 3: Pipeline Correlation (Did Marketing Touch the BD Opportunity?) This layer requires integration between marketing data and BD or CRM data, and it’s where most firms drop the ball. The goal is to match new BD opportunities against prior marketing touchpoints: Did anyone from that organization visit your site in the 90 days before the conversation started? Did the referring source engage with your content? Does the prospect’s company appear in your account-based marketing or intent data? You don’t need perfect attribution to make this work. Even directional correlation changes the conversation with partnership: “75% of our new matters in Q3 came from organizations that had prior digital touchpoints with our firm” is a statement that holds up in a budget discussion. For more on building your tracking infrastructure to support this kind of analysis, our post on top lead tracking systems for law firms covers the technical foundations. Layer 4: Revenue Alignment (What’s the Business Impact?) Work backward from retained matters: what marketing activities were active during the BD cycle? Which practice areas saw both increased marketing investment and increased new business in the same period? Where is there consistent correlation across multiple quarters? Return on Objective (ROO) is particularly valuable here. Rather than attempting to prove direct causation—which the data rarely supports cleanly—you define specific marketing objectives tied to BD outcomes and measure achievement against those objectives. Leveraging ROO will allow your law firm to identify approximate estimates as to what you are spending on marketing functions and what the results of those functions have generated for your firm in terms of revenue on a monthly basis. As we’ve covered in our overview of ROO for law firms, this approach is more honest and more persuasive than forcing an ROI calculation that the data can’t support. Firms doing this well can document marketing influence on 40–60% of new business—not marketing credit for those wins, but verifiable marketing touchpoints somewhere in the BD journey. Making This Work in Practice Getting from the framework to actual reporting requires some operational groundwork. Start With CRM Hygiene If your BD team isn’t logging how prospects first heard about the firm—or what they looked at before reaching out—no attribution model will fix that gap. Add a “how did you hear about us?” intake field that includes digital options (found us through search, read an article, saw us cited in an AI answer), and train your intake team to probe beyond “referral” as an answer. Referrals have sources too. Integrate Your Analytics and CRM Connect Google Analytics, a reverse IP lookup/buyer intent tool (like Lead Forensics, ZoomInfo, or HubSpot), call tracking (CallRail or similar), and your CRM so you can identify which organizations are visiting your site and map that against BD activity. This doesn’t require enterprise-level technology—it requires commitment to doing it consistently. Our post on why law firm marketers should care about analytics lays out the foundational setup. Report in Layers, Not Single Numbers Present partnership with the four-layer framework above. Lead with visibility trends, show engagement patterns around active BD opportunities, and correlate marketing investment with practice-area growth over time. This is both more honest and more defensible than a single ROI figure—and it reflects the reality of how legal BD actually works. For more on why this matters structurally, see our piece on tracking law firm marketing ROI. Accept Imperfect Data as the Goal, Not the Obstacle The aim isn’t to prove that a specific blog post generated a specific client. The aim is to demonstrate that marketing is consistently creating the conditions for BD success—and that reducing that investment would remove the air support that makes BD work. The managing partners asking, “What did we get for our marketing spend?” deserve a better answer than a traffic report. They also deserve a better answer than a fabricated ROI number that collapses under scrutiny. The four-layer influence framework gives marketing leaders the language and the data to have an honest, strategic conversation—one that positions marketing not as a cost center fighting for budget, but as the infrastructure that makes business development possible. 

Across firms, one pattern is unmistakable: the lawyers who excel at business development aren’t “doing BD” at all. They’re simply serving clients—but with a level of curiosity, follow-through, and commercial awareness that naturally generates new work. Meanwhile, many attorneys still experience BD as a separate, uncomfortable, time-consuming activity that sits outside their legal practice. The divide is unnecessary, and increasingly, it’s holding you back. What Are We Seeing in Law Firms Now? In nearly every firm, from Am Law 100 to boutique, leaders are trying to solve the same problem: attorneys logically understand the importance of business development, but they don’t feel connected to it. They see business development as something they “should” do, not something that flows from the work they’re already doing. Three real-world dynamics are driving this: Client expectations have shifted. Clients want proactive, anticipatory guidance, not just answers to the questions they asked today. Firms are leaner. Marketing and BD teams are stretched thin, so attorneys need to play a more active role in driving relationship growth. Competition is fierce. Firms that treat BD as an integral part of client service are winning market share from those that treat it as an extracurricular activity. The firms making the most progress reframe business development not as outreach, selling, or networking, but as an extension of excellent lawyering. How Do Top Lawyers Consistently Get This Right? They treat curiosity as a client-service skill, not a BD tactic. I once worked with a litigation partner who consistently brought in work without the traditional “pitching” we all think of when talking about business development. His secret? He ended every client call with one question: “What’s keeping you up at night that we haven’t talked about yet?” He framed it as part of his duty to understand the client’s risk landscape, not as a cross-sell attempt. Clients felt heard, and new matters emerged naturally. This pattern shows up across practices: the best BD performers are simply the best at asking thoughtful, forward-looking questions. They connect dots across the firm as a form of client protection. A regulatory lawyer at a global firm described her approach this way: “If I see a risk my client hasn’t spotted yet, I consider it part of my job to bring in the right colleague.” She doesn’t view this as “cross-selling.” She views it as safeguarding the client. The result? She’s become one of the firm’s strongest internal connectors. And her clients rely on her as a gateway to the firm’s full capabilities. They follow up like a trusted advisor, not a salesperson. A partner shared that he sends short, personalized follow-ups after major industry developments. Not alerts. Not memos. Just a few lines tailored to the client’s business. He said, “It’s not BD. It’s being a good lawyer.” What Are Some Practical Shifts That Can Make Business Development Feel Like Client Service? Shift 1: Reframe business development as risk management and client protection. When BD is framed as “selling,” it is easy for lawyers to resist. When it’s positioned as helping clients anticipate issues, it is more easily embraced. Encourage attorneys to ask one forward-looking question in every client conversation. Shift 2: Build micro-BD habits into existing workflows. Small actions compound. Instead of asking lawyers to “make time for BD,” embed it into what they already do: Add one strategic question to every client call Send one personalized follow-up per week Share one internal introduction per month. Shift 3: Equip lawyers with client-ready insights, not marketing materials. Give attorneys short, digestible talking points tied to client priorities—not long memos or pitch decks. When lawyers feel confident in the substance, they naturally bring it into conversations. Shift 4: Celebrate behaviors, not just outcomes. Firms often reward originations but rarely recognize the business development behaviors that lead to them. Highlight attorneys who demonstrate traits that make business development feel like service. Curiosity, collaboration, and proactive communication. Shift 5: Train lawyers to listen for “moments of opportunity.” Most business development opportunities arise in passing comments: “We are expanding into a new market…” “I am worried about upcoming regulations…” “We are short-staffed on compliance…” Teaching lawyers to spot these signals transforms everyday conversations into relationship-building moments. The Bottom Line When lawyers see business development as something separate, they avoid it. When they see it as an extension of excellent client service, they excel at it. The firms that win in the next decade will be the ones that stop treating BD as a parallel track and start treating it as part of the craft of lawyering itself.

Traditional advertising has given way to a continuous stream of digital activity across websites, search engines, social media, and increasingly, AI-driven interfaces. This shift has expanded both reach and exposure. Marketing content is now persistent, highly visible, and easily scrutinized. What a law firm publishes can be reviewed by regulators, competitors, and the public at any time, often long after it first appears. Regulators, including state bar associations, are paying closer attention to how legal services are presented. At the same time, consumers and competitors are more willing to challenge claims that appear misleading or incomplete. Oversight now comes from multiple directions, including state bar disciplinary authorities, state Attorneys General in cases involving consumer protection, and private litigants under statutes such as the Lanham Act. Today, marketing operates within a regulatory framework that carries direct implications for compliance, reputation, and professional liability. What “Marketing Compliance” Actually Means for Law Firms Marketing compliance for law firms is grounded in professional conduct rules. The most relevant starting point is ABA Model Rule 7.1, which governs communications concerning a lawyer’s services. Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications. The definition of misleading is broader than it may appear. A communication may fall short of compliance if it creates unjustified expectations, omits material information, or leads a reasonable person to form an inaccurate impression. This interpretation has been reinforced through commentary to the Model Rules and through state-level enforcement decisions. State-level variation introduces additional complexity. The ABA Model Rules provide a framework, but each state adopts and enforces its own version. These differences affect disclosure requirements, the use of testimonials, claims of specialization, and whether marketing content must be filed or reviewed in advance. Marketing exposure also extends beyond professional conduct rules. State Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws allow regulators and, in some cases, consumers to challenge misleading marketing. The Lanham Act allows competitors to bring claims for false advertising that causes commercial harm. The scope of marketing itself has expanded. Compliance expectations now apply across: Websites and landing pages Social media content Third-party platforms and directories Reviews and testimonials AI-driven tools, including chatbots The American Bar Association has noted that the rapid growth of digital communication has placed pressure on traditional approaches to regulating lawyer advertising, requiring ongoing interpretation in modern contexts. The Fragmented Regulatory Landscape and Why It is Risky The regulatory environment governing law firm marketing is fragmented and evolving quickly. U.S. state governments are increasingly active in regulating digital practices, particularly in areas such as data privacy, online advertising, and consumer protection. Dozens of states have introduced or enacted laws in recent years that directly or indirectly affect how firms market their services. In 2024 alone, more than 300 social media-related bills were introduced across 42 states. Enforcement approaches differ significantly across jurisdictions. Requirements vary across several dimensions: Disclosure rules Recordkeeping expectations Approval workflows Enforcement intensity Some states, including California and New York, are widely recognized for more assertive regulatory approaches. Others apply less intensive oversight. This environment continues to evolve. Research from Thomson Reuters and KPMG indicates that state-level regulation is expanding and diverging. Some jurisdictions are increasing enforcement activity and introducing more detailed requirements, while others remain closer to federal baselines. This has resulted in a widening gap between states. For law firms operating across multiple jurisdictions, this creates a practical challenge. Compliance often needs to align with the most restrictive applicable standard rather than a single consistent rule set. Where Law Firms are Getting Into Trouble Today The rules governing lawyer advertising are well established. Current enforcement focuses on how those rules are applied in modern marketing environments. Several recurring areas of risk stand out. Results-based advertising continues to draw scrutiny. Statements that highlight large settlements or verdicts can create unjustified expectations if they are not properly contextualized. Disclaimers are frequently required, and their placement and clarity influence how regulators assess compliance. Superlatives and comparative claims require a clear basis. Terms such as “best” or “top” may be considered misleading if they cannot be objectively substantiated or if the underlying criteria are not disclosed. Testimonials and reviews present additional challenges. They can create misleading impressions about likely outcomes if they lack appropriate context. Firms are responsible for how testimonials are presented, even when they appear on third-party platforms. Fee-related messaging must be precise. Phrases such as “no win, no fee” need to clearly explain any conditions, limitations, or exceptions. Third-party marketing introduces further exposure. Law firms remain accountable for marketing conducted on their behalf, including lead generation platforms, affiliates, and directory listings. A lack of oversight in these areas is a common source of disciplinary action. The Digital Shift and Why Risk Is Increasing The transition to digital marketing has introduced a different level of operational complexity. Instead of discrete campaigns with defined timelines, firms manage a continuous flow of content across multiple platforms and formats. Content is created, updated, and distributed at scale. It often involves internal teams, external vendors, and automated systems. Maintaining consistency across these channels becomes increasingly difficult as volume grows and messaging evolves. The use of automation, AI-generated content, and chatbots adds further complexity. These tools can generate variations in language that have not been formally reviewed or surface outdated information that no longer reflects current positioning or regulatory expectations. Recent developments in the legal sector illustrate how quickly this risk can materialize. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for submitting filings that relied on AI-generated case law that did not exist, highlighting how unverified outputs can pass through professional workflows without detection. In parallel, regulators are responding to instances where AI chatbots have presented themselves as authoritative sources of legal guidance while producing inaccurate or misleading information. In some cases, this has resulted in users acting on incorrect advice, raising questions about responsibility, supervision, and disclosure. These examples are not marketing-specific, but they demonstrate a broader pattern. AI-generated content can appear credible and authoritative while introducing errors that are difficult to identify without structured oversight. When applied to marketing, the same risks extend to website copy, social media posts, chatbot interactions, and automated responses at scale. Digital content also leaves a durable record. It can be indexed, archived, and retrieved with ease. This increases the likelihood that issues will be identified during routine oversight, audits, or investigations. Content that was created quickly or without full review can remain visible and attributable long after it was first published, increasing both regulatory exposure and reputational risk. From Reactive to Proactive: How Firms Should Approach Marketing Compliance Many firms address compliance issues after they arise. This approach introduces avoidable risk, particularly in an environment where marketing activity is continuous, highly visible, and subject to retrospective scrutiny. A more effective approach treats marketing as a controlled, auditable communication function. This requires structure, accountability, and clear documentation aligned with the expectation that marketing activity may need to be reviewed or challenged at any point in time. Review processes should be designed to identify higher-risk content before publication, with a focus on claims, disclaimers, and contextual clarity. Approval workflows should define responsibility and ensure that decisions are formally recorded and attributable. Documentation standards should make it possible to reconstruct and evidence what was published, when it was approved, and how it changed over time. These controls reduce the likelihood of non-compliant content being published. More importantly, they ensure that firms are prepared to respond when questions arise. A well-structured approach creates a reliable, verifiable record of marketing activity, enabling firms to demonstrate compliance clearly and confidently during audits, regulatory inquiries, or disputes. Where Technology Fits: Enabling Defensible Marketing Compliance Meeting advertising rules is not sufficient on its own. Firms must also be able to demonstrate compliance if their marketing is questioned. In practice, this is where many firms face challenges. Marketing content is distributed across websites, social platforms, and third-party channels. It changes frequently, often without a complete record of what was published at a specific point in time. When regulators, competitors, or litigants raise concerns, firms may struggle to reconstruct the exact communication in question, including how it appeared, what disclaimers were shown, and what context surrounded the claim. In many jurisdictions, this challenge is a regulatory requirement. State bar rules increasingly expect law firms to maintain records of their advertising at specific points in time. In most states, this takes the form of event-driven archiving, where firms are required to retain copies of marketing content whenever it is “disseminated.” In practice, this means creating a new record each time a website is launched, significantly updated, or materially changed. Some states impose additional, more prescriptive requirements. New York Rule 7.1(k), for example, requires law firms to archive website content at defined milestones, including: the initial publication of the website any major redesign any meaningful and extensive content change In addition, New York requires firms to retain a copy of their website at least every 90 days, even if no significant changes have occurred. New Jersey applies a similar approach, requiring monthly archiving of attorney advertising. These requirements create a clear expectation. Firms must not only manage what they publish, but also maintain a complete, time-based record of how their advertising evolves. A defensible approach to marketing compliance therefore depends on the ability to capture, preserve, and reproduce marketing content as evidence, both on a scheduled basis and in response to change. Building a Defensible, Future-Ready Marketing Compliance Strategy The way law firms market their services has evolved, and the expectations that govern those activities have evolved with it. Digital channels have increased visibility and reach, while state-level regulation and enforcement have introduced additional complexity. Firms must now navigate a landscape where marketing activity is continuously exposed to scrutiny. Those firms that establish clear processes and invest in the right supporting technology are better positioned to manage risk, respond to regulatory demands, and maintain trust in a highly transparent environment.

“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.

Have you seen those “Top 100 Lawyers” or “Influential Women in Business” awards and wondered how recipients actually earn those distinctions? Industry awards can often seem opaque, with confusing criteria and vast competition that makes award nominations feel like an uphill battle. You are not alone. Over the past decade at Blattel Communications, I’ve written hundreds of award nominations and have seen all kinds of award submission formats. Some ask for a lawyer’s matter list with a short description, while others seek long-form essays breaking down the nominee’s influence. But the one thing that remains constant across all submission forms is the emphasis on and importance of a good story. A strong character can carry a story, but the character’s impact can be devalued if their story itself is weak. Think “The Joker” sequel from 2024: Joaquin Phoenix is a delight to watch, which should have made a mass-appeal hit, but the film’s story left too much to be desired. The inverse is also true: a great story elevates a great character even higher, creating something truly memorable, much like Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad . That’s where the right team can add value. By leaning into our expert writing skills and storytelling prowess, we can transform your career achievements into a story worth recognizing by highlighting your impact, leadership, and relevance in a way that appeals to judges and readers. Nominations Should Showcase Your Story, Don’t Skimp on Impact What makes a good story worth telling—and worth recognizing? As a lawyer, your litigation achievements are impressive, but do results alone make a good story? Don’t get us wrong. There’s a reason legal and courtroom dramas like Suits are popular, but we all know Suits isn’t reality, and the truth of legal work is too procedural for a TV show. So, what makes a show like Suits work? Drama, suspense, unique settings, compelling themes, and characters: these are key elements that demonstrate the impact of a good story. When writing an award nomination, all good stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end woven together as a larger narrative. This is what helps convince the reviewing body that this nominee is worth recognizing. As you prepare for your nomination, consider the following: Does this matter or achievement break new ground or set legal or industry precedent? Was it a first-of-its-kind or unusually complex case or deal in a specialty jurisdiction? Did you argue in front of a legendary judge? Close a deal in record time despite a giant transactional team? Does this matter exemplify a recent trend or follow a major news event that we can highlight (e.g., consumer class actions against technology companies involved in data breaches, lawsuits against public entities over wildfires, etc.)? When you tell colleagues or family members about this case or deal, what excites you? What piques the interest of those outside of the profession? These are just a few examples, but they point to the key elements that frame the story and help us (the writers) sell the readers (the judges) on the impact of the matter and your role in it. Extensive Nomination Details A couple of my favorite authors are Agatha Christie and Stephen King. Each author pours incredible detail into their stories. There is no such thing as a filler or throwaway point in their storytelling. Every single word or idea, no matter how small, either sets up a red herring meant to distract the reader or a clue pointing to the suspect. From character descriptions to setting the scene, reading these stories is always incredibly immersive. Details provide additional flavor and context for your story. If you’re describing a matter that recently concluded, it helps to have more facts that point to the impact of the case and your role in it. Asking pointed questions that lead to more detailed answers is a simple way to move beyond a surface-level case description, giving more authority to your submission. Some examples may include: Will this deal break new ground, open new markets, or shape an industry? What brought the parties to the table? How long was the matter litigated, and what were the stakes at the outset? If settled, can you disclose the settlement amount and the plaintiff’s original demand? On what grounds did you successfully convince a judge to dismiss a case? What was the basis for your appeal? Is the matter still ongoing, and does it signal broader industry impact? What are the potential ripple effects of the matter on an industry or society more broadly? If a deal, what is the larger significance of the deal beyond value? Waiting to Submit an Award Nomination is OK, Too Not every year is the right one to submit a nomination. Maybe you don’t have a big win to highlight, or you want to increase your community involvement before putting yourself forward. Or, maybe you’re working on a big matter that you expect to resolve before next year’s award cycle. Regardless of the reason, waiting a year isn’t the worst strategy. In most cases, it will strengthen your nomination next year with a fresh and full narrative. The goal is not a submission for its own sake, but recognition grounded in substance and impact.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a part of nearly every industry, and the legal field is no exception. More specifically, AI-generated evidence is constantly evolving, and it is important for attorneys to keep learning about it, so that we can stay informed, prepared, and, more importantly, ahead of the curve. AI-generated evidence consists of a variety of data, including but not limited to photographs, videos, and other documents or materials that are developed or integrated through AI technology to analyze data or create new content. While this form of evidence can be an innovative tool, there is widespread, valid concern about the use of this evidence. On one hand, unlike with tangible, physical evidence, there is no clear point of origination with AI-generated materials. Thus, there are concerns about authenticating the validity of the AI-generated evidence and the integrity of said evidence. To determine whether evidence is AI-generated, there are a few steps we can take to guide our assessment. One step is to trust our instincts. Attorneys are trained to evaluate the credibility, consistency, and plausibility of all evidence and information presented to them while investigating and developing their case strategy. That same instinct should be applied when reviewing potential AI-generated evidence. If a document, text, image, or video appears too polished or inconsistent with the surrounding facts, it may warrant closer scrutiny. There is something to be said about thinking a piece of evidence is “too good to be true.” There is no harm in following up on the validity of a piece of evidence if something about it has raised questions or caused pause. For example, consider a scenario where opposing counsel produces a video allegedly depicting a plaintiff speaking in a measured, articulate manner with calculated pauses and minimal emotions. Yet during deposition testimony, the attorney sees that the same plaintiff speaks rapidly, with an accent, displays natural hesitation, or is animated. Such discrepancies between the evidence provided and real-world presentation should raise immediate concerns about manipulation or artificially-generated activity. Depositions are therefore a critical investigative tool, not only for factual development, but also for evaluating whether the evidence aligns with the witness’s authentic behavior, speech patterns, and demeanor. Attorneys may also investigate whether there are any pre-suit recorded statements taken by a reputable third-party, such as an insurance company, of plaintiffs or relevant fact witnesses to further assess any discrepancies with proffered digital evidence. Once our suspicions arise, the next step is to obtain the underlying metadata associated with the evidence. Metadata functions as a digital fingerprint, often revealing creation date and time and the device or software used to generate the file. For example, if a party claims a text message was sent five years earlier, metadata may show that the file was actually created recently and on what software. In many cases, metadata can serve as our smoking gun. Nevertheless, attorneys must be aware and keep vigilant that in the age of AI, metadata can also be manipulated. It is just one piece of the puzzle that can be used to evaluate the authenticity of proffered evidence. If authenticity remains in question, retaining an appropriate expert is critical. Courts increasingly rely on technical experts to interpret complex digital evidence, particularly where AI tools may be involved. Relevant experts may include digital forensic scientists, data analysts, and/or cybersecurity professionals. Courts have begun to confront the admissibility of AI-generated or claimed AI-manipulated evidence. In Huang v. Tesla [1], a California state court rejected an objection to video evidence premised on the generalized claim that the footage “could have been” a deepfake. The court made clear that the mere possibility of AI manipulation is insufficient to exclude evidence. Instead, the court determined that parties must present concrete, technically-grounded proof demonstrating that the presented evidence is inauthentic or unreliable. This ruling shows that challenges to AI-related evidence must be supported by specific facts, expert analysis, or forensic evidence. This approach is consistent with longstanding authentication requirements under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 901 requires only that the proponent produce evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” The standard is intentionally low: courts do not demand absolute proof of authenticity, but rather a prima facie showing through testimony of a witness with knowledge (expert witness), distinctive characteristics, metadata, or evidence describing the process or system that produced the item. Once that threshold is met, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate a genuine issue as to authenticity. In the AI context, courts are making clear that hypothetical concerns about deepfakes do not, by themselves, defeat admissibility.  Similarly, attorneys must grapple with the potential consequences of the improper use of AI-generated evidence in their cases and the importance of identifying and asserting improper use by their adversaries. AI use presents risks that we cannot ignore, such as hallucinations in case law citations. In the matter, Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. [2], The Superior Court of California, Alameda County, dismissed the case with prejudice when it was discovered that pro se plaintiffs had used deepfake videos and altered photographs as exhibits to their motion for summary judgment. As previously discussed, the subject videos showed witness testimony in an unnatural manner with unsynchronized mouth movements and other identifiable issues. Evaluation of the photographs demonstrated false data, such as altered screenshotted messages and a security guard superimposed into the image. In the Order, the California Superior Court states, it “remains suspicious of the other evidentiary submissions, but it does not have the time, funding, or technical expertise to determine the authenticity of Plaintiffs’ statements or conduct a forensic analysis.” This point leads into a deeper discussion about how improper use of altered, false, and/or distorted AI-generated evidence puts further burden on court time and resources. In response, courts have begun imposing non-monetary and monetary sanctions in response to the AI-generated hallucinations in legal briefs. Recently, an Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court judge sanctioned two attorneys after they filed a brief that included these AI-hallucinated citations. While these sanctions are one tool used by the court to send a strong message throughout the legal community about the consequences of these serious acts of misconduct, it is important for attorneys to remember the professional rules of conduct and oath of fidelity, honesty, and lawful practice that they have an obligation to abide by. This is not to say that the use of AI-generated materials is strictly prohibited. We know that this ever-developing technology will continue to be a part of ongoing legal practice. However, it is important that all attorneys stay apprised of the rules, protocol, and guidelines as outlined by the courts for the use of AI in their legal practice and hold their adversaries accountable to uphold the same standards. Since AI is here to stay, attorneys must approach it as a tool, and never as the final product. AI cannot replace professional judgment, ethical obligations, and strategic analysis that is essential to competent representation. There are many nuances that attorneys as humans discover in their cases that can never be replicated by AI technology. Thus, in this age of technology, it is important for attorneys to remember that this human aspect of practice is a strength and, accordingly, must hold ourselves and our adversaries accountable. [1] https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/ai-in-courts/deepfakes-evidence-authentication/ [2] Mendones v. Cushman et al Decision

Imagine someone with a legal question, perhaps a young woman who has finally made the decision to file for divorce. On a quiet evening while her spouse is out of the house, she opens her laptop and begins her search for a lawyer. Until recently, that search would have started with a query typed into a search engine. Now people are increasingly beginning their search with an AI tool like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity. Even if our searcher did decide to Google, one of the first things she’d see would be an AI Overview. Like the other AI tools, this overview might provide a curated recommendation leading the searcher to contact the website directly, without even sending her to the attorney’s website. AI is the new referral engine. It hasn’t changed the fact that people need lawyers, but it is affecting how they find them. Gartner, Inc. predicted in 2024 that traditional search engine volume would drop 25% by 2026. 2026 is here, and that prediction is largely on track. Understanding what has changed, why, and how to adapt is the key to enhancing your law firm’s visibility to AI and, by extension, your target clients. Searching for an Attorney: The Old Way vs. The New Way Walking through the “old” way of searching for a lawyer online and comparing it to the “new” way helps to illustrate just how much things have changed. The traditional online path to hiring a lawyer starts with an inquiry to Google or another search engine: something like “divorce lawyer near me.” Within a second, the search engine results page (SERP) appears, yielding a list of SEO-driven links. At this point in the search, position on the SERP takes precedence over substance, and the user is scanning results rather than making a decision. The next step is to check out a few law firm websites, usually those ranked high in search engine results. Our searcher is making comparisons at this point, not contact. They may leave the law firm websites to gather validation from a third party like Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo, or Google reviews. Finally, the searcher may return to one or more law firm websites, fill out a contact form, or call the office directly. With this path, exploration is user-driven, with lots of comparison. Factors like SEO, website design, and reviews all play a role. Now contrast the journey to a law firm that starts with AI. The query itself is different, more natural, and specific, like “Who is the best divorce attorney near me for high-conflict cases?” It’s more than just a search; intent and context are factored in. The AI tool generates a short answer with a shortlist of recommendations, including the rationale behind them, such as an attorney’s experience or specialization. Unlike the search engine, the AI isn’t just providing options; it’s screening and recommending them. The user doesn’t have to explore multiple law firm websites and third-party sites for information and validation. They can “borrow trust” from the AI’s framing, contacting fewer firms, and making a decision faster. In a nutshell: With traditional search, your law firm’s credibility gets checked after a user discovers your website. With AI, if the tool doesn’t find you credible, you may not get discovered at all. Why Does AI Recommend Differently From Google? There are many reasons AI and search engines make different recommendations. Here are some of the most important things for lawyers to understand. They have different incentives and goals. Search engines are optimized to return the best group of links for a user to evaluate. Google is incentivized by clicks and time spent on search, and success means the user clicked on something (or multiple things). By contrast, AI is optimized to return the best answer. Instead of assuming the user will weigh the options, AI assumes responsibility for reducing the effort required to make a decision. Success doesn’t mean more clicks; it means the user got what they needed and doesn’t have to keep searching. They rank different things. Google ranks individual law firm web pages, with a focus on things like keywords, backlinks, and site structure. It also pays attention to how “fresh” a site’s content is. But as Best Lawyers CEO Phil Greer points out, peer recognition and structured data determine who AI surfaces in legal search. AI isn’t just looking at the page and how well it’s optimized for search engines. Instead, it’s evaluating the firm itself across many sources. Some of those, like the law firm website and its content, are entirely within the lawyer’s control. But AI also looks at professional directories like Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell to confirm the firm’s credibility and review platforms like Google and Yelp for consistent signals about the firm’s reputation. And it doesn’t stop there; AI looks at legal and editorial content, media mentions, and other sources to see if there’s a broad general consensus about what the firm is and does, and whether what the firm says about itself aligns with what others say about it. AI tends to favor firms with a consistent online presence and strong, repeated signals about what they do and how they excel. They define “help” differently. Google and other search engines help users by providing them with many options and a somewhat agnostic approach. Think of Google as a hotel desk clerk. When a guest asks what there is to do in town, Google waves them in the direction of the rack holding dozens of brochures for nearby attractions. AI offers fewer, but more heavily filtered, options. Think of AI as a hotel concierge. When a guest asks for things to do, the concierge asks questions about the guest’s interests, needs, and limitations. Then the concierge makes a recommendation based on that input and the information they have gleaned from experience, previous guests’ feedback, and other sources. That approach prevents overwhelm and increases confidence, along with the likelihood that the inquirer will actually follow through on one of the recommendations. The New Referral Agents in (Virtual) Town There are a number of AI tools that can act in that “concierge” capacity, but like real human concierges, they have their differences. ChatGPT (OpenAI), arguably the most familiar to most people, has a conversational style that helps people clarify their situations on the way to finding a lawyer. Claude (Anthropic) has a similar style, but tends to be even more deliberate and structured. Gemini is Google’s answer to AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT, with the added benefit of being able to pull from Google’s ecosystem of resources, including maps, reviews, and local data. Perplexity not only provides answers but also cites sources. There are also legal-specific AI tools like Co-counsel and Harvey, designed to help legal professionals work more efficiently. While they aren’t used to help people find an attorney, AI tools designed for legal work are further evidence that AI is a growing presence in the legal space, not a passing fad. Attorneys who want to capitalize on how AI is changing the profession are learning to adapt. Everlaw recently reported that 64% of in-house legal teams expect to rely less on outside counsel due to efficiency enabled by AI. And Jones Walker’s AI forecast for 2026 included the prediction that 40% of enterprise apps will feature task-specific AI agents. What Makes Attorneys Visible to AI? If your prospective clients are using AI to look for an attorney, you need to make sure AI can direct them to you. That might seem daunting for lawyers who have spent years focusing on SEO, but it’s actually good news. Remember that AI values credibility, legitimacy, and consistency, not technical tricks to game ever-evolving search engine algorithms. Highlighting your strengths is within your control, so let’s talk about some of the things that drive AI recommendations. (You’re probably already doing some of them!) Professional, Updated Website Design and Content Your law firm website is still important to AI search, but its role has shifted. AI scrapes websites to understand law firms’ practice areas, location, service area, and depth of experience. Structured attorney profiles, case highlights, and clear practice descriptions help AI decide that a firm is not only legitimate but highly qualified. Content that is regularly refreshed, such as blog posts and FAQs, signals to AI that the site is active and relevant, which boosts the site’s credibility. Independently Verified Peer Recognition Recognition in Super Lawyers or Best Lawyers and AV- or AV Preeminent ratings from Martindale-Hubbell register with AI as third-party endorsements, which carry more weight than self-promotion. These listings are seen by AI as signals that others in the profession are validating and vouching for the attorney’s skill and ethics. Complete, Consistent Profiles Across Online Directories State bar listings, legal directories like Avvo and Justia, and other online directories contain information about your firm, including name, address, and phone number (NAP) as well as information about your practice areas. When that information is inconsistent (perhaps due to a move or phone number change that wasn’t updated across all directories), AI interprets the inconsistency as a lack of credibility. Consistent, accurate information increases AI’s confidence that yours is a legitimate, established firm. Published Thought Leadership Authority matters to AI, and demonstrating thought leadership through published articles, speaking engagements, white papers, and relevant quotes in the press signals authority. This is another reason maintaining a blog with current posts on legal topics and new developments in the law has value; it helps AI better understand your practice areas and perceive you as someone who knows them well. Client Reviews on Platforms Indexed by AI Like independently verified peer recognition, client reviews on platforms like Google and Yelp signal to AI that third parties find your law firm trustworthy and reliable. In particular, AI looks for patterns: multiple satisfied clients describing an attorney as “responsive” or “professional” strengthens the signal of legitimacy, as does a high volume of consistently positive reviews. Because AI culls information from a wide range of sources, there’s a cumulative effect to these legitimacy signals; the more layers of verification, the more likely AI is to surface your firm as a good option for users. Remember: credibility is not just something that can be measured, but also built. With AI, substance matters more than fluff; smaller firms can compete with larger ones, so long as they maintain a consistent, credible presence. And because AI visibility is linked to trust, leads who come to your firm through AI may be more likely to convert. The Risks of AI Invisibility While the good news is that smaller law firms can capitalize on their strengths to build AI visibility, the flip side is that firms that ignore the shift in how people search may become “invisible” to AI. That can translate into a loss of business without any obvious reason, leaving firms scrambling to identify and fix the sudden shortfall. Google provides tools, like Google Analytics and Search Console, to help attorneys track a drop in business. You can see if your organic rankings dropped, say from #2 to #10. That usually leads to a drop in impressions (people seeing you) and clicks (people visiting your site), and ultimately to fewer conversions. With AI invisibility, users may never know you exist; your law firm is simply not presented as an option. You can’t check your rankings or track lost impressions or clicks; you just see fewer inquiries. In other words, with Google, your firm’s presence may decline; with AI, it may disappear. With fewer signals and less feedback, it’s hard to course-correct. And by the time you notice the drop in traffic, it may be even harder to gain visibility. What Law Firms Should Do Now With the shift in how people find lawyers online, it’s more important than ever for smaller law firms to be proactive in managing their visibility. Fortunately, there are concrete steps you can take to increase your AI visibility. Claim and Fully Complete All Major Legal Directory Profiles AI looks at major legal directories like Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, and Justia for clues to your firm’s credibility. These sites, in particular, are easy for AI to read because they are standardized and structured. To avoid conflicting signals that tank AI’s confidence in your firm, ensure that all profiles tell a complete, consistent story about who you are and what you do. Pursue Peer Recognition Rankings AI can’t truly know who the best lawyers are, so it relies on credibility signals from those in a better position to know: other lawyers. Peer recognition validation from organizations like Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers tells AI that multiple reliable sources consider you among the best, and that AI can confidently recommend you. Those badges on law firm websites aren’t just for decoration! Publish Substantive Content That Positions You as a Thought Leader Consistent publication of articles on specific legal issues, speaking engagements, and media quotes position you as a thought leader in your areas of practice. AI looks for publications that align with your stated practice areas and that have real depth (not just a generic retread of information that’s already out there). Audit Public-Facing Bios for Completeness and Clarity Attorney profiles are among the pages human readers most often visit on law firm websites. They are also one of the most important (and overlooked) AI inputs. To strengthen yours, clearly state your practice areas and include specific experience and credentials. “California Certified Family Law Specialist with 25 years of experience in high-conflict divorce” is much stronger than “experienced, dedicated, family law attorney.” Remember that consistency is also important to AI, so audit information about you online and ensure that information in other biographical profiles matches what you have on your law firm website. The goal is to create a clean, unified digital identity that AI can confidently recognize and recommend. A Note About Ethics and Privacy As important as increasing AI visibility is for your law firm’s marketing, it’s critical to adhere to ethics rules about marketing and client privacy while doing so. Unintentional violations can happen in one of the following ways: Describing case outcomes too specifically, so that the details make a client identifiable Exaggerating claims or credentials in a way that could mislead the public Feeding sensitive data or real client scenarios into an AI tool Failing to be transparent with clients about whether and how AI is used in their case, or how their data is handled Minimize the risk of ethics violations by aggressively anonymizing case information online, or avoid real case scenarios altogether. When using AI, never input confidential or sensitive information into a system that trains on your data. And consider centralizing oversight of your marketing content and attorney profiles so unapproved updates don’t fly under the radar. Legal Search is Evolving. Your Firm Can Evolve with it. The legal profession is by nature conservative, but lawyers have successfully navigated change in the past. They can do the same with the shifts in legal search that AI has brought about. As with past changes, the attorneys and firms who understand the nature of the change and adapt their behavior accordingly will not just survive, but continue to thrive. Key Takeaways AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity are becoming the first place people turn when searching for an attorney, changing how clients find legal help. The steps that improve AI visibility are the same ones that build a genuinely trustworthy online presence, so the work pays off either way. Unlike search engines, AI doesn’t just rank websites. It evaluates a firm’s credibility across many sources and makes recommendations based on what it finds. A well-optimized website is a good starting point, but firms need peer recognition, directory listings, client reviews, and regularly published content to succeed. AI rewards substance and consistency, not budget or firm size, allowing smaller firms to compete with larger ones.