The tools are genuinely good at this. The advertising rules did not change, and a superlative nobody can substantiate is a problem whoever wrote it.
Start a conversation with the AI Adoption Concierge, already scoped to marketing & business development. Choose the question closest to yours, or describe your situation directly.
Marketing is the area where firms adopt AI fastest and think about the rules least, which is a predictable combination: it feels commercial rather than legal, it sits with a marketing team or an outside agency, and nobody routes it past the general counsel. But copy published in a firm's name is lawyer advertising regardless of what produced it, and state bar advertising rules — on unverifiable superlatives, comparisons, implied results and required disclaimers — apply with exactly the same force to a paragraph a model drafted. Meanwhile the channel itself is changing underneath everyone: AI-generated answers now sit above organic results for a great many legal queries, which changes what visibility means and what content is for.
How firms get found, what happens when someone makes contact, and the rules that govern both.
Ranking is no longer the same thing as being seen. What changes when the answer appears above the results.
investigateFaster first response is a genuine win. Two hard lines define what the system may say.
investigateThe rules that already governed lawyer advertising, applied to copy nobody read closely.
investigateHow the Institute approaches marketing — growth and compliance treated as one question, because they are.
Generally yes, with attorney review before it goes out, and the review is not a formality. Everything published in the firm's name is lawyer advertising and is subject to your jurisdiction's rules on unverifiable claims, comparisons, implied results and required disclaimers — the rules attach to the publication, not to the author. Generated marketing copy has a specific tendency toward exactly the language those rules target, because promotional writing is full of superlatives and models write fluent promotional prose by default. A named lawyer reviewing before publication catches this. A marketing team publishing directly does not.
The answer often appears above the results, and increasingly instead of them. For a large share of legal queries a generated summary now sits at the top of the page, which means a firm can rank well and still not be seen — the user got their answer without scrolling. The shift this forces is toward being the source a generated answer draws on and cites, which rewards content that directly answers a specific question with substance, and rewards it more than keyword-optimised pages that were written to rank rather than to be read.
Parts of it, and the boundaries matter more here than in any other marketing use. Responding immediately, collecting basic information, scheduling and answering procedural questions are all reasonable and address a real problem, since response speed is a common way firms lose matters. What the system must not do is give legal advice, evaluate the merits of a potential claim, or say anything that could lead a reasonable person to believe a lawyer-client relationship has formed. It also cannot clear conflicts. Those two constraints define the design.
The firm and the responsible lawyers, in every jurisdiction. Neither the vendor nor the agency nor the model is subject to the rules of professional conduct — the lawyers are, and supervisory obligations extend to non-lawyer assistance including outside marketing help. In practice this means the firm needs a named lawyer accountable for what is published, and it means an outsourced marketing function using AI is a supervision question the firm has to have an answer to. "The agency wrote it" has never been a defence and it is not becoming one.
Describe how the firm gets found and who publishes. The Institute will help you find the exposure.