Lawyers Can Use YouTube to Enhance SEO and Attract Better Clients 🎥📈

On my way to chicago for the evolutions Podcast Movement conference!

Last week, I attended the "Evolutions Podcast Movement" conference at Chicago's McCormick Place, a leading venue for professional events. While the conference primarily focused on the business side of podcasting, it offered valuable sessions for solo creators and smaller-scale podcasters. I concentrated on strategies to improve my YouTube presence—a platform that is increasingly important for legal professionals looking to grow their practice online.

As discussed during my 2025 ABA TECHSHOW presentation, "How to Leverage Video to Build Your Brand, Dominate SEO, and Attract the Best Clients!" (co-presented with Patrick Wright and held at the same venue right after the Evolutions conference - more on this later!), YouTube is an essential tool for lawyers aiming to boost their search engine optimization (SEO). By creating videos tailored to your ideal clients’ needs, you can significantly improve your website’s organic traffic 🚀. This approach not only enhances visibility but also increases the likelihood of receiving inquiries from potential clients who align with your practice areas.

Improve Your Firm's SEO with YouTube!

🎥

Improve Your Firm's SEO with YouTube! 🎥

I learned more bout improving my SEO through Video and Youtube at evolutions!

For attorneys with limited technical expertise, YouTube offers a straightforward way to build credibility online. You should probably focus on producing educational content that addresses common legal questions or issues your target audience may face. Use platforms like ChatGPT or Perplexity.AI to help optimize video titles, descriptions, and keywords to ensure your content ranks well on Google and YouTube searches 🔍. Embedding these videos on your website can further improve engagement while showcasing your expertise.

Attending “Evolutions Podcast Movement” reinforced to me how video content can be a game-changer for legal professionals seeking better client connections. Whether you're new to technology or moderately skilled, leveraging YouTube effectively can help you stand out in a competitive market 🌟.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

MichaelDJ@TheTechSavvyLawyer.Page

MTC: ⚖️ ChatGPT and the Supreme Court: Two Years of Progress in Legal AI ⚖️

What can we learn about the evolution of generative aI in its ever growing analysis of the supreme court?

Ed Bershitskiy’s recent SCOTUSblog article, “We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” offers a compelling analysis of how ChatGPT has evolved since its launch in 2023, particularly in its application to Supreme Court-related questions. The article highlights both the successes and shortcomings of AI models, providing valuable insights for legal professionals navigating this rapidly advancing technology.

In 2023, the original ChatGPT model answered only 42% of Supreme Court-related questions correctly, often producing fabricated facts aka “hallucinations” and errors. Fast forward to 2025, newer models like GPT-4o, o3-mini, and o1 have demonstrated significant improvements. For instance, o1 answered an impressive 90% of questions correctly, showcasing enhanced accuracy and nuanced understanding of complex legal concepts such as non-justiciability and the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Krantz’s analysis also underscores the importance of verifying AI outputs, as even advanced models occasionally produce mistakes or hallucinations.

Always Check Your Work When Using Generative AI - It Can Create Hallucinations!

🚨

Always Check Your Work When Using Generative AI - It Can Create Hallucinations! 🚨

The article compares three distinct AI models: GPT-4o is detail-oriented but prone to overreach; o3-mini is concise but often incomplete; and o1 strikes a balance between depth and precision. This comparison is particularly relevant for legal professionals seeking tools tailored to their needs. For example, GPT-4o excels at generating detailed narratives and tables, while o1 is ideal for concise yet accurate responses.

Lawyers are not going to be replaced by ai but those lawyers who do not know how to use ai in their practice and mindful of its constant changes will be left behind!

Krantz also explores how the line between search engines and AI-powered tools is blurring. Unlike traditional search engines, these AI models analyze queries contextually, offering more comprehensive answers. However, legal practitioners must exercise caution when relying on AI for research or drafting to ensure ethical compliance and factual accuracy - in other words, always check your work when using AI!

As AI continues to evolve, its role in legal practice is becoming indispensable. By understanding its strengths and limitations, lawyers can leverage these tools effectively while safeguarding against potential risks. Krantz’s article provides a detailed roadmap for navigating this technological transformation in law.

PS: I can’t stress enough to always check your work when using AI!

Happy Lawyering!

MTC

Word of the Week: Hallucinations (in the context of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Natural Language Processing)?

The term "hallucination" refers to a phenomenon where an AI model generates or interprets information not grounded in its input data. Simply put, the AI is making stuff up. This can occur in various forms across different AI applications:

Remember just like you can’t complain to the judge when your clerk makes a factual or legal error in your brief, you can’t blame ai for its errors and hallucinations! 😮

Text Generation: In NLP, hallucination is often observed in language models like ChatGPT. Here, the model might generate coherent and fluent text, but this text is factually incorrect or unrelated to the input prompt. For instance, if asked about historical events, the model might 'hallucinate' plausible but untrue details. Another example is when attorneys rely on ChatGTP to draft pleadings only to learn the hard way that its cited cases do not exist. (Remember, always check your work!)

Image and Speech Recognition: In these areas, AI hallucination can occur when a model recognizes objects, shapes, or words in data where they do not actually exist. For example, an image recognition system might incorrectly identify an object in a blurry image, or a speech recognition system might transcribe words that were not actually spoken.

I’ll spare you a deep, complex discussion of the problems with AI in this context.  But the three takeaways for attorneys are: 1. The programming for AI is not ready to write briefs for you without review, 2. Attorneys are not being replaced by attorneys (but attorneys who do not know how to use AI in their practice correctly will be replaced), and 3. Always check your work!

Happy Lawyering!

#73: Legal Research and More, with Sarah Glassmeyer

Our next guest is law libriarian Sarah Glassmeyer. She has a career that includes academia, nonprofit tech, and even a fellowship at Harvard. Her numerous awards, including being named to Fastcase 50 and as an ABA Legal Rebel, speak to her impact. Sarah's commitment to learning and growing and her passion for her mission ensure she'll never stop striving for positive change in the legal world.

Join Sarah and me as we discuss the following three questions and more!

1. What are the top three tech tools utilized by larger law firms that solos and small law firms would be surprised are reasonably accessible to them?

2. What are the top three ways Chat GPT falls short for attorneys?

3. What are the top three directions that you see technology heading in that attorneys should keep an eye on?

In our conversation, we cover the following:

[01:08] Balancing Platforms: Sarah’s Hybrid Tech Ecosystem

[10:13] Tech Tools for Smaller Firms to Rival the Big Players

[23:38] Three Ways ChatGPT Falls Short for Attorneys

[37:07] Key Technological Trends for Attorneys to Monitor

[45:12] Where to Connect with Sarah

Resources:

Connect with Sarah:

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/sglassmeyer
Website: sarahglassmeyer.com/
Substack: substack.com/@sarahglassmeyer

Hardware mentioned in the conversation:

ThinkPad: lenovo.com/us/en/c/laptops/thinkpad/

Software and Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation:

Substack: substack.com/@sarahglassmeyer
FatCow: bluehost.com/fatcow
Azure: azure.microsoft.com/en-us
AWS: aws.amazon.com/

My Two Cents: If you are going to use ChatGTP and its cousins to write a brief, Shepardize!!!

AI does not replaced doing your homework! Shepardize!!!

An attorney in New York learned the hard way that ChatGPT is not a reliable source.  A lawyer representing a man in a lawsuit against an airline used an artificial intelligence (AI) program, ChatGPT, to assist in preparing a court filing. However, the AI-generated content turned out to be entirely fabricated. The lawyer cited nonexistent court decisions and quotations in his brief, which were not found by either the airline's lawyers or the judge. The lawyer admitted to using ChatGPT for legal research and claimed he was unaware of the program's potential for providing false information. The judge ordered a hearing to discuss potential sanctions. The incident highlights the debate among lawyers regarding the use of AI software and the need to verify information provided by such programs.

Chatgpt has been known to not only be wrong at times but also make up stuff!

I look at it this way: If your new clerk handed you their first draft, you would double-check the work and likely Shepardize the citations; I don’t think I have to preach that Shepardizing cases before filing a brief is usually the rule of thumb. Rule 1.1[8] requires attorneys to keep a reasonable understanding of the technology we use and how to use it. This inherently includes knowing technology's limitations and flaws. Something the NY attorney conceded he did not do with his use of ChatGTP.

Know the aba model rules and your state bar rules of ethics!

Rule 1.1 [1, 4 & 5] requires an attorney to act with competence. In this case, I have a feeling Mr. Schwartz did not follow this rule - he did not check his case law. I have some empathy for Mr. Schwartz.  But I also have a feeling the bar will not feel the same way.       

Happy Lawyering!!!

MTC.