No jurisdiction has an exception for copy a model drafted. The rules attach to publication.
Start a conversation with the AI Adoption Concierge, already scoped to advertising rules & claims. Pick a starting point, or describe your situation directly.
Lawyer advertising has been regulated for a very long time and the rules are, by professional-responsibility standards, unusually concrete: no false or misleading statements, no unverifiable superlatives, restrictions on comparisons and on presenting past results, disclaimer requirements that vary considerably between jurisdictions. None of this was written with AI in mind and none of it needed to be, because the rules attach to what the firm publishes rather than to how it was produced. What AI changes is the volume and the tone. It produces a great deal of copy quickly, in confident promotional register, containing precisely the superlative and outcome-implying language the rules restrict — and it produces it faster than a review process designed for a monthly newsletter can absorb.
Generated promotional copy trends toward every one of these by default.
"Best", "leading", "premier", "top" with nothing substantiable behind them.
Restricted in most jurisdictions unless factually substantiable.
Recoveries and verdicts presented so a reader expects the same. Disclaimer rules usually attach.
Any suggestion of a promised outcome. Straightforwardly prohibited.
"Specialist" and "expert" are regulated terms in many jurisdictions, tied to certification.
Permitted in most places, with requirements that differ meaningfully between them.
How firms keep published copy compliant.
A discipline question the firm never intended to create.
Supervisory duties extend to non-lawyer assistance, including outside agencies. If your agency is generating copy with AI and publishing it in the firm's name, that is the firm's responsibility — and most firms have not asked the agency what it uses.
No. The rules govern what the firm publishes and communicates, and they make no distinction based on who or what drafted it. A misleading statement is misleading whether a partner wrote it, a marketing assistant wrote it, or a model produced it — and the responsible lawyers answer for it either way. The practical difference is entirely one of volume and velocity: a firm publishing ten times as much needs a review process that scales, or it needs to publish less.
Something objective that a regulator would accept, which is a higher bar than most marketing copy meets. A ranking from a recognised, methodologically transparent source, a verifiable certification, an accurate statement of experience. What does not substantiate a claim is the firm's own belief that it is true, or a superlative that sounds like marketing rather than a factual assertion — several jurisdictions treat "puffery" more narrowly than firms expect. When in doubt the safer construction is a specific factual statement rather than a comparative one.
Everything published in the firm's name, yes, and the depth can sensibly be tiered. A substantive practice-area page making claims about the firm needs close attorney review; a routine update may need less. What does not work is a volume of output that exceeds review capacity, because the practical result is unreviewed publication with a nominal policy on top — which is worse than a smaller programme, since the firm now has a documented process it demonstrably did not follow.
You are generally subject to the rules of each jurisdiction where you advertise or solicit, and they differ in ways that matter — disclaimer wording and placement, what may be said about results, whether specialisation claims are permitted, and retention requirements all vary. Firms operating across states typically write to the most restrictive applicable standard, which is simpler to administer than maintaining variants, though it costs some marketing latitude. Online content is generally treated as reaching everywhere it can be read.
Describe who writes and who approves. The Institute will help you find the gap.