Keeping a content calendar full is one of the more time-consuming parts of legal marketing. Filling gaps under pressure tends to produce whatever topic comes to mind that week, rather than content that reflects what the chambers or firm actually wants to be known for.
AI can help, but how it is used matters. Asked for content ideas with no input, AI will produce plausible-sounding topics with no connection to real priorities, cases or expertise. Given real material to work with, it becomes a useful planning assistant, whether that means organising known priorities into a schedule or suggesting topics drawn from genuine sources.
Content pillars: the foundation before AI gets involved
Before AI has anything useful to plan, a chambers or firm needs to know what its content is for. Content pillars are the small number of core themes that content consistently returns to. Three to five is the range most marketing guidance recommends (Relevant Audience), though it is a convention rather than a rule, and the right number depends on the breadth of practice areas and audiences.
For a typical chambers or firm, pillars might include:
- case updates and judgments
- sector or practice area insight
- people and culture, such as appointments, pupillage and recruitment
- practical guidance for instructing solicitors or clients
Pillars matter for AI planning because they narrow the task. Rather than inventing topics from nothing, AI has a small set of defined themes to sort real priorities into, which is a more constrained and more useful job.
Keeping client information out of AI tools
Planning content around real matters means taking care over what is shared with AI tools. The Law Society’s guidance, Generative AI: the essentials, advises solicitors not to put confidential data into free online AI tools, and notes that some providers’ terms allow them to reuse what is entered. The Bar Council’s guidance on generative AI urges the same caution over privileged and confidential information and personal data, and the Bar Standards Board’s AI guidance explains how existing Handbook duties apply to AI use.
In practice, AI can usually do the planning work from anonymised descriptions, such as “a Court of Appeal judgment in a construction dispute, publishable from mid-month”, rather than names and details. Separately, any decision to publicise involvement in a case should be checked against client confidentiality and relevant professional conduct guidance before it reaches the calendar.
Turning pillars into a month of content
Monthly planning starts with the priorities that already exist: known cases, upcoming deadlines, sector developments, recruitment cycles, and any events or announcements in the pipeline. AI’s role is to map that list against the pillars and suggest how it might be spread across the available slots, flagging likely imbalances (for example, three pieces on one pillar and nothing on another).
AI can also suggest topics, provided it is working from genuine material, such as recent judgments, website search data or questions that instructing solicitors regularly ask. Deciding which priorities matter, and what is worth publicising, remains a judgement for the people who know the business.
Building an editorial calendar
An editorial calendar turns a monthly plan into specific dates, formats and channels. AI can save time on the structural work: sequencing pieces so similar content is not published too close together, flagging when a long-form article and a campaign push fall in the same week, and laying out a calendar that is easy to review.
AI can also help check a draft against simple rules, such as whether each pillar appears over a given period, or whether one format (long articles, say) is crowding out others (LinkedIn updates, short guides). Its findings are best treated as a first pass, though. AI tools can miscount or miss clashes, particularly across longer calendars, so a spreadsheet with a simple count by pillar and format is a more dependable check.
What fills each slot still needs to come from real material. The calendar is a scheduling tool, not a substitute for having something worth saying.
Integrating campaigns without disrupting the baseline
Most chambers and firms run campaigns alongside regular content: a recruitment drive, a report launch, a rebrand, or a push around a particular practice area. These need to sit within the wider calendar without being drowned out by routine content or pushing everything else aside.
AI can help by treating campaign content as a layer on top of the pillar-based baseline, and flagging clashes such as two significant pushes in the same week, or a campaign period in which other practice areas go quiet for too long. How much weight a campaign deserves relative to everything else is a decision for those who understand its importance to the business.
Input-led, not input-free
AI is useful in content planning when it has real input to work with: priorities, pillars, campaigns and genuine source material. Asked to produce ideas from nothing, it fills calendars with interchangeable topics that could belong to any chambers or firm.
The time saved is real either way. The difference is whether what fills the calendar is worth the reader’s time once it gets there.
Frequently asked questions
Can AI suggest content topics for a chambers or law firm?
Yes, but the quality depends on the input. With no information about a chambers or firm’s cases, priorities or strengths, AI tends to produce generic topics that any similar organisation could publish. Given real material, such as recent judgments, website search data or common client questions, its suggestions become far more relevant.
How many content pillars should a chambers or law firm use?
Three to five is a common starting point. Too many makes it hard to maintain a consistent presence across all of them, while too few may not reflect the breadth of the practice. The right number depends on the range of practice areas and audiences, but pillars should be few enough to remember without checking a document.
Is it safe to use real case information when planning content with AI?
Details of live or confidential matters should not be entered into general-purpose AI tools, and anonymised descriptions are usually enough for planning purposes. Any decision to publicise a case should also be checked against client confidentiality and relevant professional obligations.
What is the risk of relying too heavily on AI for content planning?
The main risk is a calendar that looks complete but is not connected to anything the chambers or firm genuinely wants to say. A full calendar is not the same as a useful one, and content planned without real input is likely to need substantial editorial work before it is worth publishing.
Should campaign content replace regular content during a campaign period?
Usually not entirely. Campaigns tend to work best layered on top of a continuing baseline, so that other practice areas and audiences are not left without content for weeks at a time. The right balance depends on the campaign’s scale and duration.
How often should a content calendar be reviewed?
A monthly review is a sensible default, with informal checks whenever a significant new matter, deadline or opportunity arises. A calendar that is never revisited soon drifts away from what is actually happening in the business.
Sources
- Brandwatch, Content pillars, social media glossary, last updated March 2026
- Relevant Audience, What is a content pillar?, October 2026
- The Law Society, Generative AI: the essentials
- Bar Council, Considerations when using ChatGPT and generative AI software based on large language models, updated November 2025
- Bar Standards Board, Artificial intelligence guidance, May 2026
