Why No-Go Claims Are the Fastest Way to Lose Trust
Many AI texts sound "smooth" – and that is exactly what is risky for law firms. Not because of AI, but because of exaggeration:
- absolute promises,
- "guaranteed",
- shaky numbers,
- implicit legal advice.
The problem is subtle: A potential client reads "We guarantee fast processing" and thinks "sounds good." Their lawyer friend reads the same and thinks "untenable, unprofessional, potentially actionable."
The goal is not "softening" – it is precise phrasing. Precise statements are often stronger than vague promises.
The Psychology Behind No-Go Claims
Why Teams Fall Into the Trap
Marketing reflexes: Copywriters are trained for "emotional, big promises." This works for consumer goods, not legal services.
AI outputs: LLMs naturally produce smooth, optimistic text. Without guardrails, exaggerations slip in.
Time pressure: "We need content tomorrow" leads to copy-paste without review.
No checklist: Without defined no-gos, everyone relies on gut feeling.
Why It Hurts
- Professional rules: Attorney advertising is strictly regulated (ABA Model Rules, state bar rules)
- Liability: Misleading claims can lead to disciplinary action
- Reputation: Sophisticated clients spot exaggerations immediately
- Internal: Partners block approval because they see risk
No-Go List (Copy/Paste) + Alternatives
Absolute Promises
| No-Go | Why Problematic | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| "We guarantee..." | Absolute, attackable, ethically questionable | "Typically...", "In many cases..." |
| "100% legally secure" | Untenable, nothing is 100% secure | "With clear guardrails and approval process" |
| "Always" / "Never" | Absolute statements invite counterexamples | "Generally", "Usually" |
| "The best / leading..." | Potentially misleading without evidence | "Specialized in...", "Focused on..." |
Unverifiable Numbers
| No-Go | Why Problematic | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| "Saves 80% time" | Unsubstantiated, varies widely | "Goal: stabilize response time under 12h" |
| "10x faster" | Exaggeration without context | "Significant time savings on [specific process]" |
| "Thousands of satisfied clients" | Unspecific, not verifiable | "Practicing since [year]", "[Number] completed matters in [area]" |
Implicit Legal Advice
| No-Go | Why Problematic | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| "AI handles this legally correctly" | Suggests AI provides legal advice | "AI assists with structure, approval stays with you" |
| "You should [specific legal advice]" | Legal advice outside engagement | "Typical options include..." (keep general) |
| "This is legally secure" | Guarantee without engagement | "Consistent with common practice", "In line with [statute]" |
Unprofessional Promises
| No-Go | Why Problematic | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| "Instantly more clients" | Unrealistic, unprofessional | "Predictable visibility – measurable via defined KPIs" |
| "Without risk" | Nothing is without risk | "With calculable effort" |
| "Success guarantee" | Results cannot be guaranteed | "Transparent approach with defined milestones" |
3 Rules That Solve Almost Everything
Rule 1: State the Context
Bad: "Our automation saves enormous time."
Better: "For a 5-person team with structured intake process, we reduced average first response time from 48h to 8h."
The context (team size, starting point, process) makes the statement verifiable and credible.
Rule 2: Metrics Instead of Gut Feeling
Bad: "Significantly faster processing."
Better: "Response time < 12h (measured over 90 days), intake throughput -40%."
Metrics you actually track are credible. Gut feeling statements are not.
Rule 3: Name Approval and Owner Clearly
Bad: "AI creates your content automatically."
Better: "AI creates drafts. Approval by [role]. Responsibility remains with the firm."
Who bears responsibility? Every piece of content must answer this question.
The 3-Second Rule for Content Review
Read every sentence and ask:
- Can someone disprove this? If yes: Soften or substantiate
- Would a partner sign off on this? If no: Rephrase
- Does it sound like advertising or information? If advertising: Defuse
A sentence that passes all three questions is ready for approval.
Mini Template: Safe But Not Soft
For every service description or case study:
Starting point: [Team size], [process], [problem]
Goal: Stabilize / improve [KPI]
Approach: 1 workflow live, then stabilize
Guardrails: Approval by [role], QA process, monitoring
Result: [Measurable outcome with timeframe]
Example:
Starting point: 8-person firm, no structured lead capture, first response often >72h
Goal: Stabilize response time to <24h
Approach: Automated intake with categorization, then gradual expansion
Guardrails: Partner approval for new workflows, weekly KPI review
Result: Average first response 11h (measured over 6 months)
Approval Workflow for Content
Tier 1: Self-Check (Author)
- No-go list checked
- 3-second rule applied to every sentence
- Numbers provided with source/context
Tier 2: Peer Review (Colleague)
- Second pair of eyes on critical statements
- Professional responsibility concerns?
- Advertising rule concerns?
Tier 3: Partner Approval (for sensitive topics)
- Case-related content (even anonymized)
- Statements about success rates or outcomes
- Comparisons with competitors
Common Situations and Solutions
Situation: Marketing Wants More Punch
Problem: This sounds too reserved, can we make it stronger?
Solution: Strength comes from specificity, not exaggeration.
- Weak: "We are very experienced"
- Strong: "Focused on employment law since 2008, 400+ wrongful termination cases"
Situation: AI Output Contains Exaggerations
Problem: GPT writes "guarantees you maximum efficiency"
Solution: Adjust the prompt. Explicit instruction: No absolute promises. No guarantees. Prefer conditional phrasing.
Situation: Competitors Exaggerate Too
Problem: Others also write things like leading and guaranteed.
Solution: That does not make it right. Sophisticated clients recognize the difference. And: Liability risk exists regardless of what others do.
No-Go List as Approval Accelerator
The biggest advantage of a no-go list is not risk minimization – it is speed.
Without list: Every reviewer checks according to their own judgment. Endless discussions about phrasing. Approval takes days.
With list: Clear criteria. Author self-checks before submission. Reviewer confirms compliance. Approval in hours.
A well-defined no-go list is an automation tool for the approval process.
Next Step
If you want content automation, a no-go list is mandatory – it makes approval fast and reduces risk.
- Create no-go list for your team (use this as basis)
- Integrate into prompt templates
- Define approval workflow
- First week: Check every output against the list
Guide: Content Automation for Law Firms
Related:
Content Approval in 10 Minutes