Can a law firm use AI to write its marketing content?

Roughly half the states have now issued their own guidance on the use of generative AI in producing legal content, and none of it says you can’t use the tools.

The real question is the one behind it. If AI drafts the content and it invents a case result or overstates a credential, whose problem is that? It is the firm’s, always, regardless of who or what wrote the draft. Which is exactly why the process matters more than the tool does.

The real issue in this YMYL (Your Money, Your Life) vertical is compliance and the higher standard firms are held to regarding content accuracy. If your AI generated content promises outcomes, overstates a credential or invents a case result, the liability of these bar compliance breaches lands squarely on the attorney.

This is a marketing operations article, not legal advice. Advertising rules vary by state and generative AI guidance is being reissued constantly. Confirm anything here against your own bar’s current rules.

What the guidance actually requires

New York, Florida and California have gone furthest with detailed ethical direction on generative AI, and the common thread is a verification requirement rather than a ban. A competent human has to review the content before it goes live.

The failures that have produced discipline were not “a lawyer used AI.” They were “a lawyer published something AI produced without checking it.” A California attorney was recommended for professional probation after briefs were filed containing AI-generated fake quotations. That is a verification failure, and it would have been just as sanctionable if a paralegal had invented the quotes.

The two things that create real exposure

Fabricated specifics. Case results, verdict amounts, settlement figures, credentials, awards, years of experience, bar admissions. These are details a language model will produce confidently even when it does not truly know them. They are also exactly the details that must be substantiated and accurate.

Unsubstantiated claims. Claims of expertise, promised outcomes, client results, testimonials, awards, and review authenticity all require underlying documentation if a regulator or the FTC challenges them. “Best personal injury lawyer in Florida” is a problem whether a human or a model wrote it. The tool didn’t create the risk, it just made it appear quicker.

Notice that neither of these is unique to AI. The key is having a verification process that can handle the additional output created by AI-leveraged content workflows.

A process that works

1. Facts come from the firm, never from the model. Firm-specific claims such as case results, attorney bios, bar admissions, and awards go into the draft from a firm-supplied source document. Legal facts and claims should be cited and carry primary sources directly in the content.

2. No superlatives or outcome promises in the template. “Best,” “top-rated,” “we win,” and any implied guarantee stay out at the drafting stage rather than getting caught at review. It is easier to never generate them. Even “expert” has ramifications depending on your specific certifications and the state you operate in.

3. Attorney review of the finished piece. Approving a topic is not approving the finished output. The review has to happen on the words that will publish, by someone at the firm who can be accountable for them, and it has to be a required step in the workflow rather than a courtesy email.

4. Substantiation stored with the piece. If the content claims a result or fact, the source supporting that result is attached or cited properly. If the claim is challenged eighteen months later, you want the documentation next to the content.

5. A work log. What published, when, and who approved it. This step helps to protect all parties involved by ensuring proper review is indeed happening, and saves time should any issues arise later.

Questions to ask a vendor or your content team

“What is our review process from draft to go-live for all marketing content?”

The answer should include a named attorney at the firm reviewing finished output in addition to verifying citations and sources. Internal guardrails and automated compliance gates are useful but cannot replace a structured review process.