If you’re a lawyer publishing insight and commentary on your niche area of law, where do you want your publishing to live?
Of course, you’ll still want publishing on your website. People who find you by word of mouth, through search, or even through an LLM will look you up there. But that audience is shrinking.
But think about a lawyer’s credible publishing, not content marketing, that serves as secondary law. Secondary law belongs in a library, not merely scattered solely on websites, blogs or emails.
AI systems are much more likely to surface content that’s structured and housed in a library than unmarked prose scattered across individual sites.
Look at academia as an analogy. Scholars don’t just post articles on personal websites and hope someone finds them. Their work goes into journals, databases, libraries. Structured, searchable, citable infrastructure. That’s what gives it authority and reach.
This same logic applies to legal practitioners in this day of AI. A lawyer writes an analysis of a new regulatory development. Where does it have more value, sitting on a standalone blog or website, alone, or housed in a library where it’s structured data, indexed, discoverable and given authority by a Clio/vLex and other legal research platforms and AI systems looking for authoritative legal commentary?
LexBlog has been providing lawyers and law firms a blog publishing solution for over twenty years. Doing so we have the obligation to serve lawyers and the public now, in the days of AI. That’s especially true when today’s legal libraries are lacking in practitioner publishing — a gap we’re building to fill.