Featured · Content
Running a content operation inside a practice that bills by the hour
Content marketing fails at law firms for an operational reason rather than a strategic one. The plan is usually fine. What breaks is production: the pages are assigned to fee-earners whose time is billable, reviewed by partners who are in court, and by March nothing has been published.
So this is about the operation — where material comes from, who writes it, how it gets approved, and what a realistic volume actually is.
Where the material already exists
Firms describe a shortage of ideas and almost always have a surplus of raw material they are not capturing.
The questions clients ask in first meetings, which are the exact questions being searched.
The explanations fee-earners give repeatedly — if it has been said three times, it should be written once.
The updates the firm already reads. Somebody is monitoring changes; that monitoring is content with an audience attached.
The matters that went wrong and the pattern behind them, written generally and without identifying anybody.
The questions referrers ask, which produce the material that generates referrals rather than search traffic.
And the firm's own procedures — what happens after somebody instructs you is the page most firms lack and most readers want.
Capturing this is the whole problem. A shared note where fee-earners drop a question they were just asked, taking a few seconds, removes the ideas problem permanently and costs nothing.
The corollary is that a content programme starting with keyword research and no capture habit will produce pages that rank and say nothing, because nobody inside the firm supplied the substance.
Why production stalls
Each of these is predictable, and each is a decision that was never taken rather than a failure of will.
Assigning writing to fee-earners without reducing anything else, which means it happens after billable work, which means never.
Review by committee, which removes the specifics that made the page useful and takes six weeks.
A monthly cadence agreed in January by people who will not be doing the writing.
No editor — somebody who owns the calendar, chases the drafts and decides when something is finished.
Publishing that requires a developer, so finished drafts queue behind a purchase order.
And measuring output rather than outcome, so twenty thin pages count as success.
An operation that actually runs
Designed around the constraint rather than against it. Fewer pages, properly resourced, published reliably.
Appoint an editor. One person who owns the schedule and can say a draft is done — not a committee.
Buy the writing, and use fee-earners as sources rather than authors. An hour of interview produces a better page than three weeks of waiting for a draft.
Set a realistic volume: one substantial page a month beats four thin ones, and it will still be happening in year two.
Separate accuracy review from style review. A partner checks the law and the regulatory risk; nobody else touches the prose.
Give the editor publishing access, so nothing waits on a developer.
Improve existing pages as often as you add new ones. A page that half-works is cheaper to fix than a new one is to write.
Write each page to one search and one situation, and link it from the practice-area page it belongs under.
Measure enquiries per page, not pages published.
The firms that sustain content are almost never the ones with the most enthusiastic plan. They are the ones that reduced the volume, bought the writing, appointed one editor and stopped asking busy fee-earners to be authors.
FAQs
Why do law firm content plans stall?
Production, not strategy. Writing is assigned to fee-earners whose time is billable, reviewed by partners who are in court, and published through somebody who needs a purchase order. By March nothing has gone out.
Where should content ideas come from?
From material the firm already generates — questions asked in first meetings, explanations given repeatedly, updates fee-earners already monitor, and the questions referrers ask. A shared note where anyone can drop a question removes the ideas problem entirely.
Should fee-earners write the content?
Use them as sources rather than authors. An hour of interview produces a better page than three weeks of waiting for a draft that competes with billable work, and it costs the firm far less in practice.
How much should a firm publish?
One substantial page a month, reliably, beats four thin ones. The test is not what looks ambitious in January but what is still happening in year two.
Who should review drafts?
Separate accuracy from style. A partner checks the law and regulatory risk; one editor owns everything else. Review by committee removes the specifics that made the page worth reading and adds six weeks.
End Note
Every firm that has abandoned a content programme had a perfectly reasonable plan and no answer to the question of who would write the third page in a busy month.
Capture the questions, buy the writing, appoint one editor, publish less than you meant to, and improve what half-works before adding more.
Key Takeaways
The failure is production, never ideas.
Capture questions clients actually ask — it removes the ideas problem permanently.
Use fee-earners as sources, not authors; buy the writing.
One editor who can say a draft is finished, with publishing access.
Improve half-working pages as often as you add new ones.
