How Law Firms Earn Trust in the AI Search Era

This piece began as an authentic human conversation between leading voices in legal marketing. We used AI to bring that conversation to you in written form.

From Clicks to Citations: How Law Firms Earn Trust in the AI Search Era

Artificial intelligence is changing more than the mechanics of search. It is changing the path between professional expertise and the people seeking it. For law firms, that creates the strategic communications challenge that earning visibility is no longer only about convincing a person to click an article, visit a website, or remember a lawyer’s name. Increasingly, firms also have to consider whether their expertise exists within the information ecosystem that AI systems use to construct answers.

That shift makes media relations, thought leadership, and brand trust more interconnected than ever before. As Sarah Larson explains, “the objective has shifted.” Earned media still needs to reach human readers and build reputation, but it increasingly has another job: helping establish the firm and its lawyers as credible sources within AI-driven discovery. The challenge for law firm leaders is not simply producing more content. It is building a sustained body of credible, current, distinctly human expertise that both people and machines can recognize.

Why Has the Objective of Media Relations Changed?

For years, one common way to evaluate earned media was by human reach. Firms could consider readership, website traffic, unique visitors, subscribers, or an outlet’s prestige and use these metrics to assess the value of a placement.

Those considerations have not disappeared. But according to Sarah, earned coverage now has to “do double duty.” A successful media placement can still influence the person who reads the article directly, while also potentially becoming part of the information environment that an AI system evaluates when answering a future question.

That changes the strategic objective. The goal is no longer limited to earning a click. It increasingly includes earning credibility and becoming part of the sources that shape answers.

For law firm leaders, that means media relations should not be treated as an isolated publicity function. When a reporter includes a lawyer’s perspective in a substantive story, that coverage can help establish a record of expertise outside the firm’s own channels. It gives the lawyer visibility through a third party rather than relying exclusively on what the firm says about itself.

Sarah frames the enduring requirement simply: firms “need to be found and be a trusted source.” That principle connects traditional media relations with GEO, or generative engine optimization. In the context of this conversation, GEO means helping ensure that a law firm’s credible expertise is present in the information AI systems may encounter when generating answers.

The leadership question is therefore broader than, “Did this placement reach enough readers?” Firms also need to consider whether their communications activity is building an authoritative and discoverable body of knowledge over time.

Why Does Sustained Visibility Matter More Than a Single Big Win?

A major media placement can be valuable. But the episode argues that one impressive result cannot substitute for an ongoing communications strategy.

Sarah describes the importance of a “sustained cadence” of regularly updated content and coverage. The implication is important for firms accustomed to activating communications primarily when there is an announcement, transaction, lateral arrival, case result, or other immediate piece of news.

The new environment rewards continuity.

As Sarah explains, a firm might have earned a significant placement several years ago, but if little has happened publicly since then, that older success may no longer provide the same visibility. The communications program, therefore, needs to be understood as a long-term investment rather than something that turns on only when a firm has news to announce.

This does not mean producing content simply to maintain volume. The larger issue is whether a lawyer or practice has a current and credible public record demonstrating what it knows, what it is seeing in the marketplace, and how its perspective is evolving.

For leadership, the distinction is significant. A communications strategy based largely on isolated wins can create periods of visibility followed by long stretches of silence. A sustained program creates a continuing narrative around the firm’s people and capabilities.

AI, in Sarah’s assessment, has “raised the bar” on a principle that was already familiar in legal public relations: firms generally perform better when communications are sustained over time.

That requires commitment. Attorneys need to remain available. Communications teams need access to the firm’s thinking. Leaders need to view visibility as an institutional capability rather than a collection of disconnected publicity opportunities.

Are Firms Measuring the Right Media Outlets?

The changing objective also raises a tactical question: which publications matter most?

Historically, firms often looked at the size of an outlet’s audience. A larger readership could signal greater potential reach. Sarah argues that communications teams increasingly need another layer of analysis: identifying which publications are actually appearing as sources in AI-generated answers.

That may produce a different picture of influence.

A publication with the largest human audience is not necessarily the only publication worth pursuing. The strategic question becomes where relevant information is being sourced, trusted, and surfaced.

At the same time, Sarah emphasizes that this remains an evolving measurement problem. The answer that is accurate today may change quickly as AI platforms, sourcing patterns, and user behavior develop.

For law firm leadership, the lesson is not to chase a fixed list of supposedly “AI-friendly” publications. It is to recognize that media intelligence itself has to evolve. Communications teams need to continue watching where information appears, how platforms source answers, and whether traditional measures of reach still capture the full value of earned media.

The underlying principle remains more stable than the technology: authoritative third-party visibility matters because it helps establish credibility beyond a firm’s own claims about its expertise.

Why Is Authenticity Becoming More Valuable as AI Gets Better at Producing Content?

AI dramatically lowers the barrier to producing polished content. It can create drafts, outlines, explanations, and substantial amounts of copy very quickly.

The episode’s hosts see that capability as useful but also as the reason the standard for meaningful thought leadership is rising.

Leslie Richards identifies a growing tension around content that feels synthetic or “void of human input.” When readers sense that they are encountering machine-produced material rather than an actual point of view, she argues, the result can be erosion of brand trust.

That distinction is especially important for professional services. Legal buyers are not simply evaluating information. They are evaluating people.

Sarah makes the connection: “The decision to hire a lawyer is still very, very personal.” A prospective client may evaluate credentials and legal knowledge, but eventually has to answer deeper questions. Can I trust this person? Do they understand what I am facing? How will they interact with me?

Content helps answer those questions before a conversation ever happens.

That is why Leslie argues that the “human perspective and our human voice” still need to come through. AI might assist with an outline, initial research, or a first draft, but the finished material should communicate something real about the person behind it.

Sarah compares the shift to changes she has observed in video. Highly polished production is not always what audiences want. People often respond to content that feels direct and authentic because it helps them understand who the lawyer actually is and what they think.

Perfection, in other words, is not the same thing as credibility.

Has AI Raised the Bar for Real Thought Leadership?

For Becky Bergman, the answer is unequivocally yes.

AI can explain an issue. It can produce hundreds of words describing a legal development. But explanation alone no longer distinguishes a lawyer as a thought leader.

“A true thought leader tells us what the issue means and what comes next,” Becky says.

That is the standard law firms increasingly need to apply to their content.

The strongest thought leadership draws from knowledge that cannot simply be reproduced by asking a general-purpose AI system to explain a topic. It asks what clients are actually worried about. What patterns is a lawyer noticing in practice? What are companies getting right or wrong? What risks are businesses overlooking? What conventional assumptions deserve to be challenged?

Most importantly, it asks what happens next.

Becky argues that lawyers should not stop telling readers what a law or regulation says. They can provide greater value by explaining where they believe litigation or regulation may be heading, who may be affected, and what businesses should be considering now.

That moves thought leadership from information toward judgment.

It also makes real-world experience more valuable. Attorneys do not need to reveal confidential client information to draw upon what they have learned from their practices. They can identify patterns, tell appropriate stories, challenge conventional thinking, and explain how an issue manifests itself in actual business decisions.

Leslie reinforces that point through storytelling. AI operates through pattern recognition; it does not possess a lawyer’s personal professional experience. Bringing that experience into a narrative can therefore help establish trust and credibility in a way that generic content cannot.

For firms, the strategic advantage is not simply producing something that sounds intelligent. It is demonstrating why a particular lawyer’s judgment is worth seeking.

What Makes a Story Worth Telling When Information Is Everywhere?

The episode closes this strategic loop through one of the most common forms of law firm news: the lateral move.

Jennifer Simpson Carr describes a related conversation about how difficult it has become to earn attention for lateral announcements when reporters receive large volumes of similar pitches. Saying that an attorney has moved from one firm to another may be factually accurate, but accuracy alone does not make the announcement compelling.

The more useful question is: What is the story behind the move?

Why is the lawyer joining this particular firm? What does the move say about the direction of the practice? What changes in the marketplace influenced the decision? What types of work does the lawyer expect to be handling in the future?

Sarah notes that uncovering those answers may require more work from both the communications team and the attorney. It requires conversations rather than simply handing over a résumé and office address.

But that work creates what she calls “a little bit more meat” for the story.

Becky connects the challenge to an older law firm differentiation problem. Years ago, firms might describe their primary differentiator by saying they were good lawyers. The problem, Sarah points out, is that being a good lawyer is “table stakes.”

The lateral announcement has reached a similar point. An attorney changing firms is information. The reason for the change, the market forces behind it, and the implications for the firm can become a story.

That distinction applies far beyond lateral hiring. When information becomes abundant, narrative becomes more valuable. Law firms that want meaningful visibility have to find the “why” behind what they are communicating.

The Takeaway for Law Firm Leaders

AI does not make earned media, thought leadership, or storytelling less important. This conversation argues that it makes each of them more consequential and demands more from them.

Law firms now operate in an environment where communications may simultaneously shape perceptions among reporters, clients, prospective talent, and AI systems. That makes trust the connecting principle. Firms need sustained third-party visibility, but they also need authentic human expertise behind that visibility.

The leadership opportunity is to stop treating communications as a stream of individual outputs and start treating it as an institutional record of expertise. Lawyers who consistently explain what they are seeing, why it matters, and what may come next give both human audiences and emerging answer engines stronger reasons to recognize their authority.

Resources

Leslie Richards: https://www.furiarubel.com/our-team/members/leslie-richards/

Sarah Larson: https://www.furiarubel.com/our-team/members/sarah-larson/

Becky Bergman: https://www.furiarubel.com/our-team/members/becky-bergman/

Media Relations in the Age of GEO, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/media-relations-in-the-age-of-geo/

When a Lateral Hire Isn’t the Story: How Law Firms Turn Moves Into Market Narratives, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/when-a-lateral-hire-isnt-the-story-how-law-firms-turn-moves-into-market-narratives/

Why Law Firm Growth Now Depends on True Integration: A Passle CMO Series Live Recap, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/why-law-firm-growth-now-depends-on-true-integration-a-passle-cmo-series-live-recap/

Why Law Firm Transformation Is No Longer Optional and What It Means for Law Firm Leaders, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/why-law-firm-transformation-is-no-longer-optional-and-what-it-means-for-law-firm-leaders/

How AI Is Reshaping Where Legal Value Lives, On Record PR: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/how-ai-is-reshaping-where-legal-value-lives/