Last Thursday the Eleventh Circuit rebuked an attorney for citing cases that don't exist.
AI generated them.
He filed them anyway.
The court referred him for further professional review.
Same week… the University of Chicago Law School announced device-free first-year classes and offline exams.
Their reasoning was simple.
Students need to develop independent reasoning before they're allowed to lean on AI.
Most people read these stories and think they're about how lawyers do legal work.
They're also about where legal marketing is heading.
Here's what's coming.
AI can already generate polished articles, FAQs, case summaries, newsletters, and social posts.
Every firm… regardless of size, budget, or headcount… can publish more content than it could ever need.
Which creates a new problem.
Volume stops signaling authority.
A "Five Things to Know About the New Ruling" article could come from a recognized authority with thirty years of courtroom experience.
It could come from a first-year associate…
A marketing agency in another state…
Or an AI system nobody has verified.
Prospective clients can't tell the difference.
So they're going to start looking for something else.
Here's a simple test.
Pull up the last five pieces of content your firm published.
Could another competent attorney have published essentially the same thing?
If yes… that content may inform.
It almost certainly doesn't set you apart from other lawyers.
A recognizable attorney with a point of view is quickly becoming the scarce asset now.
People are looking for judgment, accountability, a face and a name behind the analysis.
-The Legal Brief
P.S. We recently opened a limited number of sponsorship opportunities. If you'd like information about reaching our audience of attorneys and legal professionals, reply with “sponsors” and we’ll send over more info.