Managing reputation in the age of synthetic content

Reuters

4 days ago

July 18, 2025 - The introduction and increased usage of generative artificial intelligence (AI) have been influential throughout the legal industry, offering unprecedented opportunities for efficiency while introducing significant risks to law firm brands.
Tools such as ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and proprietary large language models (LLMs) can pop out client memos, legal alerts, and thought leadership articles at record speed. However, as law firms embrace these technologies, they face an urgent imperative: using the power of generative AI in a way that does not compromise the integrity of their brand.
Generative AI offers law firms a range of amazing efficiencies such as the ability to produce first drafts of documents, analyze vast amounts of data, and generate commentary on case law in minutes. These functions save time and are extremely valuable, particularly in fast-moving regulatory and litigation environments.
As an example, AI tools can quickly draft breaking news client alerts on recently introduced legislation and summarize complex case law. This can free up an attorney's time for more strategic work as well as enhance a firm's responsiveness, positioning it as a leader in a competitive market. Yet, speed could come at a cost. AI lacks an inherent understanding of legal nuance and most importantly, ethical obligations, or jurisdictional differences that a human understands. It can operate without accountability, increasing the risk of producing inaccurate, overly generalized, or fabricated content.
A notable example is a syndicated article published in the Chicago Sun-Times and Philadelphia Inquirer in summer 2025, which included a reading list featuring nonexistent books in the summer 2025 reading list article. As reported in The Washington Post, ("Major newspapers ran a summer reading list. AI made up book titles." May 20, 2025) the author admitted to using AI tools without human editing, leading to factual errors and reputational damage for both the media outlets and the author.
For law firms, similar missteps could erode client trust and tarnish a brand built over decades. The Wall Street Journal certainly could have been thinking of brand awareness when they issued their own recommendations of 14 books to read.
The adoption of generative AI introduces several risks that can undermine a law firm's reputation:
(1) Accuracy and misinformation: AI-generated content is prone to "hallucinations," which are confidently stated but factually incorrect information. In the legal context, publishing flawed analyses, outdated citations, or incorrect interpretations of case law could have disastrous consequences, particularly if the firm's name is attached.
(2) Plagiarism and intellectual property infringement: Many AI models are trained on datasets scraped from the internet. This raises the risk that outputs may inadvertently replicate existing work without proper attribution, which could expose firms to copyright infringement claims or ethical violations, both of which carry significant reputational and legal consequences.
(3) Dilution of expertise and thought leadership: Overreliance on AI for client alerts, bylined articles, or white papers risks diluting a firm's unique voice and eroding its authority. We see too many headlines using the word navigating, do we not? Clients hire lawyers for their cultivated expertise, unique insight, and judgment, not for generic, machine-generated summaries that lack depth or context.
(4) Reputational fallout from internal use: Even internally circulated AI-generated content, such as draft memos or research notes, can create liabilities if leaked or misused. A poorly written or inaccurate draft that reaches the public eye, whether through a data breach or accidental disclosure, can damage a firm's credibility.
From a public relations perspective, generative AI requires a new framework for content governance. Law firms must move beyond enthusiasm for efficiency and embrace disciplined oversight.
Here are five essential steps:
•Establish a human touch policy: All AI-generated legal content should be reviewed and ideally co-authored by a licensed attorney. Firms must make it clear that no AI-generated output goes client-facing without human verification.
•Implement AI disclosures and transparency protocols: Whether, in client alerts or public-facing articles, firms should consider disclosing when AI has been used in content creation. This transparency not only builds trust but protects against future claims of misrepresentation or malpractice.
•Train attorneys and comms teams in AI literacy: Educate your lawyers, marketers, and PR professionals on the wonders, capabilities, and also the limitations of generative AI. Understanding how these tools work and where they can fail is critical to mitigating brand risk.
•Audit for originality and attribution: Use plagiarism detection software such as Grammarly and internal checks to ensure content is original and appropriately sourced. This applies even to internal research memos and pitch materials.
•Define your firm's brand voice and reinforce it: AI can write in any voice. Law firms have a tone of voice. The challenge is ensuring it consistently writes in your voice. Set clear tone, style, and messaging guidelines so that AI-generated drafts align with your firm's brand identity.
Used thoughtfully, generative AI can elevate a firm's ability to communicate, respond, and engage with clients and the media. But it must never replace human insight, editorial judgment, or the firm's hard-earned reputation.
Your brand is your most valuable asset, so guard it accordingly, even when the content comes from a machine. AI should serve as an enhancer, not a substitute, for the qualities that make your firm unique. Thoughtful implementation requires rigorous oversight, ethical considerations, and a steadfast commitment to authenticity.