A version of this article was originally published in Legal intelligencer here on October 23rd, 2026
Law firms often rush to publish client alerts simply to keep up with competitors, but this reactive approach produces redundant content that fails to provide real value—instead, firms should focus on whether they can offer unique insights that genuinely serve their clients' needs.
Twice in the past two weeks, I’ve received a familiar email.
The first arrived after a new state employment law was enacted. The second landed just as I was working on this article, after a federal agency announced a major regulatory policy change.
Each time, a lawyer forwarded a client alert from another firm with a note:
“We need to publish something about this.”
If you work in law firm marketing, you know what happens next.
Another firm publishes an alert, then a third, all with the same basic information, and suddenly the need to “publish something” feels urgent. An associate is tasked with drafting, partners weigh in, the marketing team starts editing and everyone races to get the alert out the door.
Sometimes an alert is exactly the right response to a new law, an important court decision or a shift in enforcement priorities. And, of course, lawyers should be watching developments that may affect their clients and paying attention to what competitors are saying.
The problem isn’t the alert or even the process of putting the alert together (although I do have some opinions about that).
The problem is that the driving force behind the alert is often keeping up with competitors and looking like the firm is paying attention, and the goal is to land in clients’ inboxes first.
If that sounds a little reductive, both of the lawyers who emailed me said some version of exactly that.
The process jumps from “something happened” to “we should publish something” without stopping to ask a more important question: What would be useful to our clients?
AI, thought leadership and the legal content glut
Lawyers and firms can’t really be blamed for this thought process.
For years, law firms have been encouraged to produce more “thought leadership” to demonstrate expertise and stay visible to clients and prospects. Content volume was also touted as a way to boost search rankings, and marketing studies found that companies that blogged more often drew more traffic and leads.
Now there is more legal content than ever, and generative AI tools have made it faster and easier to produce content at scale. In fact, Google now warns against “producing lots of content on many different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results.”
If six firms have already published competent summaries of the same new law or court decision, a seventh may show that a firm’s lawyers are paying attention. But does it demonstrate particular expertise? Does it give clients insight they don’t already have? Those questions are worth answering before anyone starts drafting.
AI has also changed the value of content in another critical way. Ranking on the first page of search results matters less than whether AI Overviews and tools like ChatGPT cite a firm’s content when clients go looking for answers. The seventh (or even the second) competent summary of the same development isn’t likely to be the one an AI tool quotes.
In other words, a competitor’s alert is a reason to pay attention. It isn’t, by itself, a reason to publish.
Changing the way lawyers view content isn’t easy.
When I suggested that upcoming compliance deadlines were an opportunity to give clients additional insight, one lawyer replied that alerts have one purpose: to get the essential information out to clients as fast as possible, like all the other firms do.
Translation: Client alerts are basically all the same, and that’s just fine.
Many clients would agree with the first part of that statement: Most law firm alerts are basically the same.
They would not agree with the second part, however.
In a 2026 survey by JD Supra and LIMELIGHT, more than half of in-house counsel said they read law firm content for guidance on breaking news. Three-quarters said clarity of insight is what earns their trust, and more than a quarter have hired a firm because of its content.
Among their most common complaints? Law firm content that repeats information they can find elsewhere.
I That’s exactly what a reactive content process gets wrong. The purpose of client alerts and other thought leadership is to give clients the insight they need, not to show that the firm is paying attention.
Start with the audience, not the development
The first question should be simple: What, if anything, do the clients and prospects we care about need from us right now?
That’s very different from asking whether the development is legally important.
Sometimes a development is significant but has little immediate relevance to the firm’s clients. Sometimes the opposite is true: A seemingly narrow change creates practical questions that clients urgently need help answering.
That distinction should shape whether and how a firm responds. A traditional client alert may be exactly right when a broad audience needs to understand a significant development quickly. But if the audience that matters most is 10 clients with specific exposure, a short personal email from their relationship partner will accomplish more than a 1,200-word alert sent to an email list.
Perhaps the impact won’t be clear for months, and a webinar closer to the effective date is the better move. Or perhaps the most useful content for clients is a checklist, FAQs or a short LinkedIn post.
Ask whether you have value to add
Being first in the inbox is not a client-focused goal—and it’s virtually impossible to accomplish with any consistency. By the time your alert lands, clients probably already know the basics.
To clients, speed and value are not the same thing. So before racing another firm to the publish button, ask what your lawyers can add that isn’t already readily available.
Not every piece of content needs groundbreaking legal analysis. Clients are often looking for practical interpretation. What should they do differently on Monday morning and what should they be thinking about for the long term? Where are the nuances, gaps and unanswered questions that can become traps for the unwary?
Often the most valuable thought leadership comes after the initial wave of summaries, when lawyers have had time to see how a development is actually affecting clients and industries.
There may be some strategic advantage in being first, but there is often more in being the most useful.
Decide what you want to be known for
This is where reactive content processes can lead to big problems.
If a firm’s content program is driven by whichever lawyers spot an interesting development or a competitor’s alert, the firm will publish a large volume of perfectly good content on myriad topics. But it won’t move the needle on business development, and it uses up time and resources better dedicated to the firm’s growth priorities.
The strategic antidote is proactive content development in the areas where the firm wants to build recognizable authority—with the markets, industries and clients it wants to attract.
I’m not suggesting that firms should publish only on predetermined topics. Client needs evolve, markets shift and unexpected developments create legitimate opportunities.
But the core question remains: What do we want clients to know us for?
When a new development falls within one of those priority areas, the firm can do more than publish a one-off alert. An initial analysis can lead to client conversations, which can lead to a webinar, resource guide or series of FAQs. Over time, those pieces reinforce the firm’s depth of expertise.
The content isn’t the end goal
Many lawyers see publication as the finish line. Marketing posts the article to the website, emails it and shares it on social media, the lawyer reposts it on LinkedIn and everyone moves on to the next deadline.
A distribution plan is essential, but it only answers the question “How will we get this to clients?” A content plan aligned with business development goals asks, “What do we want to happen because we published this?”
That leads to better questions: Which clients and prospects would benefit most? Which relationship partners should send it personally, with a note? Could it open the door to a client conversation or support an upcoming pitch?
Sometimes the answer is no
Law firm marketing teams operate with finite resources, as do the lawyers creating the content. Every alert has an opportunity cost.
The hours a lawyer spends drafting an interchangeable summary could be spent developing a distinctive point of view, talking with clients or building authority on an issue the firm has decided it wants to own.
The same is true for marketing teams. Reactive work has deadlines and strategic work often doesn’t, which makes it remarkably easy for the former to crowd out the latter.
That doesn’t mean firms should slow down or stop responding to the market. It means being more selective about what deserves a response.
So the next time a competitor’s alert prompts a “we should publish something about
this” email, lawyers and marketing professionals should take a moment to ask a few questions:
Does our audience need it?
Do we have something useful to add?
Is this an area where we want to build authority?
And what will we do with the content after we publish it?
If the answers are compelling, fire up the content process. If they’re not, the most strategic content decision may be deciding not to create any at all.
Featured Articles
