I was a VP of Business Development at Martindale-Hubbell of LexisNexis when my previous company was acquired by them. I respected the heck out of Carol Cooper, its EVP and Publisher who was continuing to build a directory of profiles, one begun around the Civil War.
Profiles were a big deal in generating work for
As reported (password protected) by Amanda Robert of the ABA Journal,
“Law librarians are pushing back on the idea that generative artificial intelligence will eventually replace them. If anything, they have become more relevant as they test and promote new AI-based tools for government, law schools and law firms, says Jenny Silbiger, the president
Long before blogs were common in the legal profession, Ernie Svenson, widely known as Ernie the Attorney, was already writing online and figuring things out as he went. Svenson was among the first lawyers to experiment with publishing on the internet, not as a marketing tactic but as a way to connect, think out
I’ve been noodling on something of late. Arising out of what AI is bringing to legal publishing and discussions on LinkedIIn.
For the last twenty years lawyers and law firms have looked to their own sites, blogs or websites, as the sites giving them visibility and name. I think that’s changing.
For AI systems like
Lawyers and law firms publish constantly—blogs, alerts, insights, white papers, newsletters.
What’s changing with AI isn’t whether lawyers publish.
It’s how that publishing is found, trusted, and used.
Not just by open LLMs—but inside legal research platforms, where AI is increasingly helping interpret primary law.
Where legal writing lives now matters.
Publishing that exists only
For nearly 20 years, Kevin LaCroix has published The D&O Diary, a blog focused on directors and officers insurance that has become required reading for lawyers, insurers and professionals around the world. What began as an experiment driven by curiosity evolved into one of the most respected niche legal publications on the internet.
In
Writing the last few days about publishing by legal practitioners in the age of AI got me thinking about whether a lawyer’s LinkedIn publishing (articles and posts) are ever cited by LLM’s, the result being enhanced authority. Such content has been found on Google.
The answer is generally no for AI.
LinkedIn posts live in
Yesterday I shared why legal practitioner-generated secondary law—blogs, alerts, newsletters and email newsletters—is essential to legal AI.
When AI looks at primary law, only, the result is generic or wrong because AI is guessing at how to interpret primary law. There’s no insight from legal practioners and other legal professionals to help guide AI.
The
For years, legal research has been built around primary law—cases, statutes, code, regulations—and traditional secondary sources such as law reviews and journals.
All still important, but missing in the day of AI is the secondary law written by legal practioners, academics, law students and other legal professionals in blog posts, insights, whitepapers, and even, newsletters.
When Todd Smith launched his first appellate blog in the mid-2000s he wasn’t chasing trends. He was a young lawyer leaving big law with no book of business and needed a way to show trial lawyers who he was and what he knew. Blogging gave him a place to explain appellate issues in plain language