Using AI Writing Tools on a Defense Firm Blog Without Ethics Trouble

AI writing tools have made it easy to produce a blog post in a few minutes. For a criminal defense firm, that speed comes with a set of risks most other businesses do not face. A restaurant that publishes a sloppy AI post loses a little credibility. A defense firm that publishes a wrong statement about sentencing, or pastes a client’s facts into a chatbot to get a draft, can create a professional responsibility problem.

None of that means AI tools are off limits. Many firms use them to outline articles, tighten drafts or brainstorm questions clients ask. The goal is a process where the tool does the parts it is good at and a lawyer stays responsible for everything that gets published. This guide walks through the ethics rules that apply, what Google says about AI content, and a workflow a small firm can actually follow.

What the ABA has said about generative AI

In July 2024 the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512, its first formal ethics opinion on lawyers’ use of generative AI tools. ABA opinions are not binding on their own, but they are often cited by state bars, and several states have issued their own guidance on the same subject.

The opinion ties AI use to rules lawyers already know. The duty of competence means understanding, at a reasonable level, what a tool can and cannot do before relying on it. The duty of confidentiality applies to anything typed into a tool that may store or learn from inputs. Supervision rules mean a lawyer who lets staff or vendors use AI is responsible for how they use it. Fee rules come into play if AI time is billed to clients.

Most of the opinion focuses on client work, such as research and drafting. The same reasoning carries over to marketing content, since a blog post is still a communication about the lawyer’s services.

Confidentiality comes first

The easiest mistake to make is also the most serious. A lawyer wants a blog post about a recent case and pastes in the facts to get a quick draft. Even with names removed, details like a date, a location and a charge can be enough to identify someone.

A simple rule avoids this. Nothing from a client file goes into a general-purpose AI tool for marketing purposes. If you want to write about a type of case, describe it in general terms you would be comfortable reading aloud in a public lecture. If your firm uses an AI product with specific confidentiality terms for client work, keep that product separate from whatever you use to draft marketing copy.

Accuracy is the second risk

AI tools can produce confident, specific statements that are simply wrong. They may state a penalty range that changed years ago, describe a procedure from a different state, or cite a case that does not exist. Lawyers have been sanctioned for filing briefs with invented citations, and the same tendency shows up in marketing drafts.

Treat every factual sentence in an AI draft as unverified. Check statutes against the current code, penalty ranges against the current law, and court procedures against your local rules. If a sentence cannot be verified quickly, cut it or state the point in general terms.

Marketing content raises one more accuracy issue. Rule 7.1 of the ABA Model Rules prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services. An AI draft that promises outcomes, describes results the firm never obtained or calls the firm “the best” can cross that line. Read every draft with your state bar’s advertising rules in mind.

What Google says about AI-written content

Google has said publicly that it focuses on the quality and usefulness of content rather than on whether a person or a tool produced it. Its spam policies also describe “scaled content abuse,” which covers generating large numbers of pages mainly to manipulate search rankings. That policy applies whether the pages come from AI, from people or from a mix.

For a defense firm, the practical meaning is clear. A handful of carefully reviewed articles that answer real client questions is a reasonable use of AI help. Publishing dozens of thin, near-identical city pages generated in an afternoon is the kind of pattern the spam policy describes. Reader trust matters here too. A post that sounds generic tells a worried reader the firm did not take the time to explain their situation.

A workflow that keeps a lawyer in charge

A small firm does not need an elaborate policy to use AI responsibly. A short written process, followed every time, covers most of the risk:

1. A lawyer or marketing staff member picks the topic based on real client questions
2. The AI tool is used for an outline or a rough first draft, with no client information entered
3. A writer rewrites the draft in the firm’s voice and removes anything unverified
4. A lawyer checks every legal statement against current sources
5. The lawyer approves the final version before it is published

Keep a record of who reviewed each post and when. If a question ever comes up about a piece of content, you can show that a lawyer read and approved it.

Where AI tools help the most

Used well, AI tools save time on tasks that do not require legal judgment. They can turn a long list of client questions into a draft outline, suggest plainer ways to explain a legal term, or point out where a paragraph is hard to follow. They can also help brainstorm the different ways people phrase a search, which is useful for planning content.

They are weakest at the things that matter most for a defense firm: knowing the current law in your state, understanding how your local courts actually operate and speaking with the experience of someone who has handled these cases. That part still has to come from the lawyers.

Questions about AI and defense firm content

Do I have to disclose that a blog post was written with AI help?

There is no single national rule on this for marketing content. Check your state bar’s guidance, since some states have addressed AI disclosure in specific contexts. Whatever you decide, a lawyer should stand behind every word.

Can AI-written content rank on Google?

It can, if it is useful, accurate and written for readers. Content produced in bulk mainly to rank tends to run into Google’s spam policies.

Is it safe to use free AI tools for drafting?

For general topics with no client information, many firms do. Read the tool’s terms on how inputs are stored and used, and never enter confidential details.

How often should we review our AI policy?

At least once a year, and whenever your state bar issues new guidance. The tools and the rules are both changing quickly.

---

This guide is part of SBD Marketing’s coverage of AI and technology for legal marketing. SBD Marketing works only with criminal defense law firms.

SBD Marketing · info@sbdmarketing.agency · Book a call: sbdmarketing.agency/scheduling · Serving criminal defense law firms across the USA · sbdmarketing.agency