Silence in the thought leadership realm has its costs, but producing empty-calorie thought leadership—undifferentiated content containing no concrete guidance or takeaways—is not the answer.
Attorneys and law firms are addicted to empty-calorie thought leadership.
You know the kind I’m talking about. You’ve probably read an example of it sometime today. Perhaps it was the fourth different blog post you’ve read about that recent Ninth Circuit decision that accurately explains what happened, devotes a whopping 65 words (out of 900) to why readers should care, and reads as though it could have been produced by 500 different law firms.
The substance of these posts is lacking, and none of them adds any new thoughts to the conversation or contains differentiated thinking. And yet, you’ll likely wonder whether you or a colleague should write a post or alert about the decision because your clients would likely be interested in learning about it based on the facts, the applicable law, and the court’s holding.
You know your silence in the marketplace regarding the development could speak volumes. When a development materially affects your clients’ organization or industry, and they hear from three of their outside firms, but not from you, they start thinking about you—and not in flattering terms.
They assume you’re not paying attention. Or, the development’s central issues are outside your wheelhouse. Or, your competitors are more diligent about staying abreast of relevant developments than you are. None of those conclusions may be accurate, but they can be persuasive.
The same thing goes for your referral sources, journalists looking for sources, and conference organizers building panels. They’re looking for attorneys who consistently and visibly discuss current legal developments, because that suggests they have deep knowledge about the subject matter.
Silence in the thought leadership realm has its costs, but producing empty-calorie thought leadership—undifferentiated content containing no concrete guidance or takeaways—is not the answer.
Empty-calorie thought leadership is bad for your marketing health
You don’t come across as authoritative when your blog post or client alert about a legal development reads like every other post or alert out there on the development. You’ll come across somewhere between invisible and forgettable, and run the risk of diluting any favorable impression readers have of you and the content you produce. Empty-calorie thought leadership trains readers to skip over content with your name on it because it’s not worth their time to read it.
Yet empty-calorie thought leadership is everywhere in the legal industry. Most posts and alerts read like a 1L’s case brief, focusing on the specifics of a particular development at the expense of analyzing its relevance. And when that analysis comes, it’s often underwhelming. You’ll find plenty of hedging, generalities, and a general sense of going through the motions to hit an SEO/AEO target or a publishing quota.
Before you sit down to write thought leadership content regarding a recent development, ask yourself whether what you’re planning to say is at all different from what others have said. Obviously, there’s only so much variety possible when multiple attorneys describe how a court ruled or what an administrative agency did.
But if you weren’t planning to go in depth about the relevance of the development and what it means for your content’s target audience, you were about to produce empty-calorie thought leadership.
Produce thought leadership that nourishes your audience by incorporating these five elements
Because there are so many benefits to producing thought leadership content regarding legal developments of interest to your audience, you should take advantage of the opportunity to do so as often as you can. When you do, you can avoid producing empty-calorie thought leadership by incorporating one or more of these five elements in your content.
First, there’s the “Here’s what this means for your industry.” Ok, great, the Eighth Circuit invalidated that federal regulation regarding healthcare facilities. Zoom in on the development’s relevance to the clients you represent and/or want more of. If you represent a fair number of East Coast dental groups, your analysis of this decision and its impact will probably read differently than if you represented several plastic surgery groups in the Sun Belt. Show your audience that you know their industry.
Second, there’s the “You might want to do this now.” What should your fintech clients do now in light of that newly promulgated U.S Securities and Exchange Commission regulation that will surely affect them? Are there steps they can take today? Where should the conversations needed to implement those changes take place? At the manager level, within the C-suite, or during board meetings? Give your audience actionable guidance that shows you have mastery over this area of the law.
Third, there’s the “Be cognizant of these second-order effects.” Building on the preceding example, what are the dominoes that could fall when your fintech clients take action to comply with that new SEC regulation? Will it change their hiring practices? Their relationships with vendors? Their insurance options and costs? Show your audience that when working with you, you’ll be thinking about the issues they’ll encounter next month and next quarter as much as those they’ll encounter tomorrow and next week.
Fourth, looking a bit further out, there’s the “According to my crystal ball.” Make a low-stakes prediction or two, supported by reasoned analysis, about the development that no one will hold you to or call you out for if you’re wrong. For example, you could predict that a state supreme court decision will mobilize the affected industry to fight back through a lobbying and PR campaign, then walk through what that campaign might look like. Going out on a limb and making a prediction not only makes your content more interesting, it also suggests you have expertise in this area because you’re willing to make a plausible prediction.
Finally, there’s the “Don’t listen to them; they’re wrong.” If you think the consensus view about a particular development is wrong, say so. For example, the majority might expect a legal development to cause a period of belt-tightening and budget reductions in an industry, but you see it differently and as an opportunity for companies to invest in growth. Well-reasoned contrarian takes stand out from the crowd—and are fun to write. These takes may also be more effective at attracting reporters and conference planners than the prior four elements since they run counter to what most people are saying. And, they suggest a certain level of authority and judgment regarding the work you do, since you’re pointing at the majority view and explaining why it’s wrong.
Don’t feed your readers empty calories
As you produce thought leadership, here’s a simple test to help avoid feeding your readers empty calories: Would the piece of content you’re writing teach your readers something new? Would they learn something they didn’t know already, or become aware of a new framing of or angle to the development that’s relevant to them and/or their organizations? If the answer is “no,” revise the draft to add one of the five elements I described above, or another one that accomplishes the same goal.
Every opportunity you have to produce thought leadership content about a legal development is an opportunity to win over current and prospective clients and referral sources by demonstrating how well you know the area of law you practice. Show them you value their time by giving them insights and guidance they can apply to their organizations.
Wayne Pollock, a former Am Law 50 senior litigation associate, is the founder of the Law Firm Editorial Service, a thought leadership consulting and ghostwriting service. The Law Firm Editorial Service helps law firm partners and executives at organizations serving the legal industry produce high-quality, human-written thought leadership articles that meet their exacting standards in a fraction of the time they would typically spend writing them. He can be reached at wayne@lawfirmeditorialservice.com.
Reprinted with permission from the May 14, 2026, edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.
Want to build a thought leadership strategy that works? Take our free Thought Leadership Gap Finder and discover exactly where your content strategy has gaps — and what to do about it. Or, learn more about how LFES works with attorneys to produce consistent, high-quality thought leadership without the time investment.