When used appropriately, LLMs can help streamline marketing content creation while allowing legal professionals to focus on adding expertise and firm-specific insight.
However, the use of AI-generated content in the legal sector presents ethical and professional risks. Issues such as accuracy, confidentiality, compliance and intellectual property should be carefully considered before publishing AI-assisted material.
In this blog, we examine the benefits and risks of using LLMs to assist with content creation for UK law firms, with insight from IP lawyer Peter Wright on current guidance and the regulatory approach developing in the UK and Europe.
What are the benefits for law firms of using AI to write content?
Efficiency
AI can reduce the time required to produce written content. Tasks such as drafting outlines, summarising legal topics, or refining existing text can be completed quickly.
AI can also be useful for repurposing pre-drafted content, which can then be reviewed by a legal professional.
While human oversight remains essential, using AI as an assistant can streamline workflows and help firms maintain a consistent publishing schedule without increasing their workload.
Scaling content production
AI can help firms draft and refine content more consistently, making it easier to publish blog posts, FAQs, and website updates at scale.
This can be especially valuable for firms investing in SEO, where consistent, high-quality content helps improve visibility over time.
AI can support firms in developing content across a wider range of topics while ensuring final content reflects the firm’s expertise and professional standards.
Repurposing content
AI can help firms get more value from existing content by quickly repurposing it into different formats. For example, a detailed legal article can be adapted into a shorter blog post, website FAQ, newsletter, or LinkedIn update.
This makes it easier to share insights across multiple channels without rewriting content from scratch. Repurposing also helps reinforce key topics and ensures consistent messaging.
With appropriate review, AI can support content teams in extending the lifespan and reach of existing material while maintaining accuracy and alignment with the firm’s voice.
Structuring content
AI can help organise information into clear, logical structures, making content easier for readers to understand. It can suggest headings, subheadings, and logical flows that improve readability and engagement.
This can be particularly helpful when explaining complex legal topics to a non-specialist audience. A clear structure also supports SEO by making it easier for search engines to understand the content.
What are the legal risks of using AI to write content?
Hallucinations and misinformation
AI regularly produces confident-sounding but incorrect statements, known as hallucinations. Some legal-specific examples include:
- Inaccurate references to legislation or regulations.
- Outdated legal information.
- Legal information related to other jurisdictions.
- Fabricated case citations.
Published benchmarks vary by task, but studies suggest some models hallucinate in roughly 2–8% of factual queries, depending on complexity.
Legal content sits at the higher-risk end because references to case law, regulations, and legal principles require a level of precision that AI cannot guarantee.
For this reason, content based on your firm’s unique legal knowledge is likely to be more accurate and perform better.
Accuracy and compliance
Even when AI is used for copywriting or marketing, professional regulatory obligations still apply.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Principles and Codes of Conduct require solicitors and firms to act with integrity and ensure that information provided to the public is accurate and not misleading.
Publishing inaccurate or misleading legal-related information, including website pages or blog content, can create regulatory risk.
While AI can assist with the process, responsibility for the final published content always remains with the firm or legal professional.
Data protection
Some AI systems store or use inputs for model improvement (depending on your settings and the service provider).
It is important to review the specific terms of the LLM you are using and review your settings.
Users should avoid entering privileged or confidential client information into AI systems.
Entering confidential client information into third-party tools without safeguards or a lawful basis can create compliance risks under GDPR.
If your firm plans to use AI tools, having clear internal policies can help ensure confidential client and case information remains protected.
IP lawyer Peter Wright from Digital Law, has seen a number of recent cases related to the use of AI in law firms, particularly related to client confidentiality.
He said: “Lawyers are sharing client confidential information, personal data and commercially sensitive information on free opensource versions of LLMs.
“It constitutes a clear breach as far as the regulators are concerned and the Judiciary are punishing any instances that come before them of such conduct.”
Both the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Law Society have issued guidance recommending formal governance around AI use.
Outdated legal information
The base training knowledge of LLMs is currently about 3-12 months out of date.
This means that LLMs can provide out of date information if there has been a recent update to regulations.
AI tools have also been known to generate incorrect or incomplete legal citations.
As a result, legal information should always be checked against current, authoritative sources to ensure it reflects the latest position under UK law.
Search engine and credibility risks
Google has stated that AI-generated content is not automatically penalised. What matters most is quality, originality, and whether the content meets EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) guidelines.
For legal topics, these standards are especially high. Content that lacks clear expertise, real-world insight, or jurisdiction-specific accuracy may struggle to perform well in search results or build client trust.
AI works best when it supports the writing process of professionals with genuine legal expertise and firm-specific insight.
What legislation may be introduced to regulate the use of AI-generated content?
IP lawyer Peter Wright said that while a UK AI Act seems unlikely, sector specific legislation is already being introduced and there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI.
He said: “Firms are seemingly using AI on a large scale for marketing materials. Provided no personal data, confidential or commercially sensitive data is shared, there is very little in the way of regulation to be concerned about.
“AI is routinely being trained on IP from content creators, including journalism, written word, poetry, art and video and can regurgitate very similar content that is almost indiscernible from the original content, but the content creator is not credited or attributed, the AI is.
“This is part of the inherent tension between the creative industries and Big Tech AI, as the creatives are being ripped off in a very real and damaging way.
“The New York Times is suing OpenAI after ChatGPT was trained on its archive without permission. Meanwhile, News Group (owner of The Times & The Sun) signed a deal and at least got a few hundred million dollars for the use of their content by one of the AI engines.
“The UK Government is following a sector specific approach to regulation of AI, so the Financial Conduct Authority, SRA, FRC etc. are issuing sector specific guidance while the ICO is issuing guidance around the use of Personal data in the context of generative AI.
“There will be no UK AI Act as such, just this sector specific approach. In Europe, the EU AI Act is more worried about regulating big tech and classifying LLMs according to the level of perceived risk around their use.”
In conclusion
Peter concluded: “By all means AI can be used for helping with marketing content, blog posts, social media and LinkedIn posts is fine (within reason - I am personally sick of AI generated LinkedIn content that sticks out like a sore thumb).
“But it should be used for legal work only in very specific, limited scenarios, on walled garden systems where the information uploaded or used in prompts is not being used to train the model or at risk of being regurgitated to another user.”
If you would like any advice on how to effectively optimise your law firm's digital content using AI, check out our service page and contact us for more information.