Use the AI only to draft general information from a topic brief a lawyer wrote, then put the draft through a lawyer's review and an advertising-rule checklist before it goes live. Never let it state outcomes, compare the firm with others or address one person's facts. A named lawyer signs off every article.
A firm article is information and advertising at once, so it faces two sets of rules: the ones about giving advice, and the ones about how a lawyer may describe themselves and their results. AI breaks both in characteristic ways. It writes with confidence in the law of the wrong place, drifts into "you should", and loves a superlative. The fixes are mostly process, and they cost little beside a complaint.
Choosing topics that stay on the information side of the line
Some topics invite advice and some invite explanation, and the choice is made before any drafting. Take the questions your intake team hears most often, then sort them. A topic works when the useful answer is the same for every reader. It fails when the useful answer depends on the reader's facts, a live deadline or a result.
| Topic | Verdict | Better angle |
|---|---|---|
| "How to win an unfair dismissal claim" | Promises a result and depends on the facts | "What a first meeting about a dismissal involves, and what to bring" |
| "Is my landlord allowed to do this?" | Personal advice by definition | "What a lease usually says about repairs, and how to find the clause" |
| "Rule changes: what every business must do now" | A time-sensitive instruction the model may have out of date | "A dated summary of the change, with a link to the official source" |
| "Can I contest a relative's will?" | Depends on the facts and on the place | "What contesting a will generally involves, in outline, and who to ask" |
| "What a written agreement to settle a dispute usually contains" | Works: the answer is general | Keep as it is |
| "Preparing for a first meeting with a lawyer about a business dispute" | Works: practical and general | Keep as it is |
A reliable signal: if the honest first sentence of the answer is "it depends", the article should explain what it depends on, not guess.
The topic brief: what an article may and may not say
Start with a brief that a lawyer completes, not the AI. It fixes the scope before a word is drafted, which is far cheaper than cutting advice out afterwards. The "will not say" line is the easiest to skip, and it is the one that stops a draft from sliding into advice. An illustration, filled in for a commercial property topic:
TOPIC BRIEF (completed by a lawyer)
Working title: What to check before relying on a break clause in a commercial lease
Audience: small business owners who rent premises. No legal background.
Question answered: What is a break clause, and what usually decides whether it works?
Scope: general principles only. No advice on any reader's lease or deadline.
Place: [the place whose law this describes, or "general principles; rules differ by place"]
Will not say: whether a clause works for any reader; time limits as fixed rules; anything about outcomes, costs or timescales; any comparison with other firms.
Sources the lawyer supplies: [statute or guidance names; case names only if the lawyer has read them]
Reader's next step: speak to a lawyer before serving, or deciding not to serve, any notice.
Reviewer: [name]. Review again by: [date, no later than 12 months on]
Two fields carry most of the weight. "Place" tells the model which law's general principles to describe; if it is blank, the model chooses for you, and it will sometimes blend two systems in one paragraph. "Sources the lawyer supplies" removes the model's licence to cite anything from memory, which is where invented authorities come from. The tutorial on AI marketing for small law firms: content, reviews and the rules covers the wider marketing context, including reviews and social posts.
The Complete Excel Course with AI Integration
From formulas and pivot tables to Power Query, DAX, VBA and AI with Copilot, ChatGPT and Claude — hands-on from the first lesson.
By Sagnik Bhattacharya and Virginia Thorn, Primetime Emmy Award winner
Buy nowA drafting prompt that builds the review list as it goes
The prompt repeats the brief's limits, bans citations that are not in the brief, and ends with a request that saves the reviewing lawyer time: a numbered list of every sentence that states what the law is, so each can be verified one by one.
You are drafting a website article for a law firm. Follow the topic brief exactly.
Write 700 to 900 words in plain English for a non-lawyer, in British spelling.
Headline: states the topic, makes no promise and uses no superlative.
Use only general principles. Do not address the reader's own situation and do not use "you should".
Do not cite any case, statute or rule unless it appears under "Sources" in the brief. If a source is needed, write [SOURCE NEEDED: what for] instead.
Do not mention outcomes, success rates, timescales for matters, costs or other firms.
End with the reader's next step from the brief and nothing else.
After the article, list every sentence that states what the law is, as a numbered list, so a lawyer can verify each one.
The numbered list at the end is the most useful output. It converts "read the whole draft carefully" into "check these nine sentences against the source", which is a task a busy lawyer will actually do. Treat any sentence the model left off the list as a sentence nobody has checked; read the draft once looking for statements of law that are missing from it.
Twelve advertising-rule checks for a firm article
Rules on lawyer advertising differ by place and by professional body, and some are stricter than others on points where a different rule set is relaxed. These twelve checks recur in many of them, so treat the list as a starting point and add whatever your own regulator specifies. A lawyer or compliance lead applies it; the AI can pre-screen, but the decision stays human.
- No promise or guarantee of a result, in the headline, the body or the call to action. Search for guarantee, ensure, will win, get you, no risk.
- No claims about past results or success rates unless your rules allow them, with any context they require. The AI never writes one; a lawyer decides.
- No superlatives or comparisons: best, leading, top, number one, better than other firms. Permit them only where your rules allow and you can substantiate them.
- No claim of specialism or expertise unless you hold what your rules require for that word. Describe the work plainly instead: "we act for tenants in lease disputes".
- No testimonials or reviews inside the article unless your rules allow them and the client has agreed. See the tutorial on where the legal line sits on AI-written testimonials.
- Headline and opening match the content. No fear ("you could lose everything") and no bait.
- Information, not advice: no "you should" about the reader's own situation, and no invitation to send facts for an answer in the comments.
- Every statement of law verified by a lawyer against a primary source in the same week. No case or rule cited from memory.
- Place and date stated: which place's law is described, when it was published and last reviewed, and by whom.
- Required firm details present on the page, as your rules specify, with a clear way to contact the firm.
- No confidential or identifying client information, including "anonymised" stories that someone could recognise.
- Disclaimer present and accurate, treated as a second layer and never as the reason the content is acceptable.
Run the first four as a keyword search before anyone reads for sense: guarantee, ensure, best, leading, expert, specialist, top, always, never, must, will win, no risk. A search takes thirty seconds and catches the commonest breaches. The twelve checks go on a single page, with a tick and initials against each, and the page is filed with the article.
Before and after: one paragraph, annotated
This is what a careless draft looks like. It is an invented example of the kind of thing AI produces when asked for "a punchy article about break clauses", and none of its claims is real. Read it once, then look at the annotations.
Break clauses: how our expert team gets tenants out of expensive leases. Break clauses are always strict, and if you miss the notice date by even one day you will lose your right to leave. At [Firm] we are the leading commercial lease specialists and have helped hundreds of tenants walk away from unfavourable leases at no risk. You should serve your notice at least six months before the break date and use recorded delivery. Contact us today for a guaranteed result.
| Phrase in the first draft | What is wrong with it |
|---|---|
| "how our expert team gets tenants out" | Promises a result in the headline and claims expertise (checks 1, 4, 6) |
| "always strict" | An absolute statement of law; lease terms differ (check 8) |
| "you will lose your right to leave" | States a legal consequence as certain, for every reader (checks 7, 8) |
| "the leading commercial lease specialists" | A superlative and a claim of specialism (checks 3, 4) |
| "helped hundreds of tenants ... at no risk" | An unverifiable past-results claim plus a risk statement (checks 1, 2) |
| "You should serve your notice at least six months before" | Personal instruction and a fixed time limit that depends on the lease and the place; "recorded delivery" is also place-specific (checks 7, 8, 9) |
| "for a guaranteed result" | A guarantee (check 1) |
Seven problems in five sentences, and every one of them reads as normal marketing copy. Now the version that passes, written from the same topic brief:
What to check before relying on a break clause in a commercial lease. A break clause is a term that lets a tenant or a landlord end a lease early, usually on conditions. Those conditions are often strict, and a notice that does not follow them exactly may not work. The conditions, the time limits and the way notice must be given are set by the lease itself and by the law that applies to it, so they differ from one lease to the next. If you are thinking about a break, read the clause with its conditions in mind and speak to a lawyer before you serve, or decide not to serve, any notice. This page is general information, not advice on your lease.
The rewrite is longer, less exciting and still useful, because it tells a tenant what to look for and what to do next. It makes no promise, claims no expertise, says nothing about results, addresses no individual and places the decision where it belongs. It could still be wrong in a detail, which is why the reviewing lawyer verifies it against the source rather than trusting the AI or the rewriter.
Three other places carry the same risk, and AI is equally careless in each. Meta descriptions in particular appear in search results with none of the page's caveats around them, so they need the same checks as the body.
| Where | Typical AI draft | Version that passes |
|---|---|---|
| Headline | "Escape Your Lease: How We Win Break Clause Disputes" | "Break clauses in commercial leases: what to check first" |
| Meta description | "Expert lawyers who get results. Call now for a guaranteed outcome on your lease." | "A plain-English guide to break clauses in commercial leases: what they are, what the conditions usually cover and who to ask." |
| Closing line | "Don't risk it. Call us today and we'll sort it." | "If you want to talk through a lease you hold, you can contact [Firm] to arrange a conversation with a lawyer." |
The review gate: who signs what
Separate the roles even in a four-lawyer firm. The drafter (a marketing person, a trainee or a partner using the AI) prepares the article. A reviewing lawyer verifies every statement of law against a primary source, edits, and signs. A compliance lead, which in a small firm can be another partner, applies the twelve checks and approves publication. The drafter never approves their own work, and the reviewing lawyer should not be the person who wrote the topic brief if you can avoid it, since they will read their own scope generously.
| Field in the sign-off log | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Article and brief | Break clauses, brief dated 4 November |
| Drafter, and whether AI was used | Drafter A, AI-assisted draft, final text edited by hand |
| Reviewing lawyer and date | Partner B, 12 November |
| Statements of law verified (count, source) | 9 of 9, against the lease law guidance named in the brief |
| Twelve checks passed | Yes, initialled by Partner C, 13 November |
| Published and review-by date | 14 November; review by 14 November the following year |
You can use the AI as a first reader for the checklist, with a prompt that mirrors the one used for the posts: "Check the article against these twelve rules. Quote every phrase that breaks one, name the rule, and do not rewrite or declare the article compliant." It will flag the obvious superlatives and promises and miss subtler ones, such as an implied guarantee in the phrase "we will take care of it". That gap is why the lawyer's read cannot be skipped. For a related boundary on the chat side of the site, see AI chatbot for law firms: what it may say, capture and never answer.
Disclaimers that help and the work they cannot do
A good footer tells readers what the page is and what it is not, and it is the same on every article so nobody has to think about it. Wording to adapt with your compliance contact:
General information only. This page describes general principles and does not take account of your circumstances, so it is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Reading it, or contacting the firm, does not create a lawyer-client relationship. The law described is that of [place] and was reviewed on [date] by [name]. The law changes, so speak to a lawyer before you act.
Its limits matter more than its wording. A disclaimer cannot turn advice into information: an article that tells the reader what to do about their own contract is still advice with a footer under it. It does not cure a promise in the headline, and it does nothing about a breach of the advertising rules. Keep it legible, not in tiny grey type, and make sure the facts in it are true: the "reviewed on" date must be a real review by the named person. Some rule sets and some courts treat the "no lawyer-client relationship" line differently, so have your compliance contact confirm it for your place.
What a four-lawyer firm spends on two articles a month
An illustration with assumed minutes. Say a partner used to write each article alone in about five and a half hours, and the firm publishes two a month. With the process above, the time per article looks like this:
| Step | Who | Minutes |
|---|---|---|
| Topic brief | Lawyer | 20 |
| Draft with the AI | Drafter | 10 |
| Edit for voice and structure | Drafter | 60 |
| Verify every statement of law and edit | Reviewing lawyer | 60 |
| Twelve advertising-rule checks | Compliance lead | 15 |
| Format, add footer, publish | Drafter | 15 |
| Total | 180 |
Three hours replaces five and a half. Across two articles a month the firm spends 6 hours instead of 11, a saving of 5 hours a month, or 60 hours a year. Notice where the time goes: the AI's contribution is ten minutes, while verification still takes a lawyer an hour. The saving comes from the drafting and structuring stages, not from the review. If a firm squeezes the 60 and 15 minutes of review to hit a publishing target, it gives up the reason the process works.
Where AI goes wrong in legal articles, and how it shows up
- The wrong place's law. It appears as a confident, specific number (a time limit, a notice period) taken from a different system. The brief's "place" field and the lawyer's verification list are the defence.
- Invented authorities. In a widely reported 2023 court case, two lawyers and their firm were ordered to pay a $5,000 penalty after a filing cited cases that an AI chatbot had invented. A firm article carries lower stakes than a court filing, but the mechanism is the same: a plausible citation that does not exist. The prompt's ban on citing anything outside the brief's sources, and the lawyer's check of every source, close it.
- Out-of-date law. Models learn up to a cut-off date, and the law keeps moving. The same-week verification against a current primary source and the "last reviewed" date answer this.
- Overstatement. "Always", "never", "must" and "will" appear where the honest word is "usually" or "may". Search for them and ask the lawyer to choose.
- Drift into advice. "You should", "make sure you" and "don't" creep in, especially in the last paragraph. The check for "you should" is a keyword search, and the fix is to describe what readers generally look at or ask, not what they must do.
- Fear as a hook. A headline that warns the reader they could "lose everything" is a rule problem and a trust problem. Ask for five headlines and take the plainest.
Keeping client confidences out of the draft
The AI never needs a real matter. Give it the brief, the general principles and the sources, and nothing about any client or any live dispute. A story drawn from a real case is tempting, and even "anonymised" versions can identify a client to the other side, to a colleague or to the client. If you want a story, write a composite and label it hypothetical, and treat anything recognisable as needing the client's informed written permission and a check against your rules. The tutorial on whether solicitors can use ChatGPT without breaching confidentiality sets out what may be pasted into a general assistant and what may not.
The tool vendors set a similar boundary. OpenAI's usage policies, from the revision taking effect on 20 November 2026, prohibit offering AI tools that hand people tailored advice needing a licence unless a licensed professional is properly involved. A firm that keeps articles general and puts a lawyer's review in the middle is keeping well away from that line, and the same arrangement makes each page easier to defend to a regulator or a client.
Questions law firms ask about AI-drafted articles
Can an article say which types of case we handle?
Yes, as a plain and accurate description of the work, such as acting for tenants in lease disputes. What needs care is the language around it: specialist, expert or leading can be restricted by your rules. Say what you do, not how good you are, and avoid describing results.
Do we need a disclaimer on every article?
Use a consistent one on all of them: general information, no lawyer-client relationship from reading or enquiring, the place whose law is described, and the date reviewed. Ask your compliance contact for any wording your rules require. A disclaimer supports the content; it never excuses advice written into it.
Can AI write about recent changes in the law?
Only with a lawyer verifying each statement against the current primary source in the same week. Models are trained up to a cut-off date and can miss or garble recent changes. For fast-moving topics, link to the official source, keep your own summary short, and date it.
Should the AI write the headline?
Let it propose five, then choose one that states the topic and makes no promise. Headlines are where guarantees, superlatives and fear creep in, so apply the same checklist to the headline as to the body, and read it again after the final edit.
Further reads
- AI for Attorney Marketing: Content and Intake Follow-Up Within the Rules — Content plus intake follow-up within the rules.
- AI Client Intake for Law Firms: Qualify Enquiries Out of Hours — Qualify website enquiries out of hours.
- Best AI Chatbot for Lawyers: General Models vs CoCounsel — General assistants against legal-specific tools.
- AI Software for Solicitors: Data, Supervision and Supplier Checks — Data, supervision and supplier checks before buying.
- Can You Legally Use AI-Generated Images in Your Marketing? — Illustrations for articles without a legal tangle.
- AI Implementation Plan for a Small Law Firm: The First 90 Days — A 90-day plan for a small firm.
- AI for Franchise Lead Generation: Staying Inside Advertising Rules — AI for franchise lead generation without breaking advertising or earnings-claim rules: prospect ads, landing pages, FDD timing and lead handling.
- Can You Use AI to Advertise a Professional Practice Within the Rules? — How a regulated practice can draft adverts with AI and still meet professional advertising rules, with a compliance check you can copy.
- AI Tools and AI Development: The Complete 2026 Guide — the AI hub, including every tutorial in the AI-for-business series.
Sources: OpenAI usage policies (revision effective 20 November 2026) and the published June 2023 court sanctions order against lawyers who cited cases an AI tool invented. Advertising rules differ by place and professional body; check yours.