Many legal professionals have created blog-type content on platforms like Substack in recent years. Changes in Substack’s corporate ownership and related fears of what Cory Doctorow calls “enshittifcation” are motivating many to seek alternatives.

In my view, independently owned blogs are the best alternative. An upcoming LLRX article will explain this in detail. This post supplements that article by discussing alternatives to Substack and blogs.

Here is a practical overview of the leading options:

  • Medium. Medium operates less as a newsletter infrastructure provider and more as a centralized publishing network. Its core advantage is built-in audience discovery: writers can tap into Medium’s existing readership through topic tags, curation, and algorithmic distribution, without needing to build an email list from scratch. The barrier to entry is low — no hosting setup, no payment processing configuration, and no technical maintenance. Monetization occurs through the Medium Partner Program, which pays based on member reading time rather than direct subscriptions to a specific writer. That model can benefit newer writers seeking exposure, but it also limits pricing control and audience ownership. Writers do not control the subscriber relationship in the same way they would on Ghost, Beehiiv, or Kit, and earnings can fluctuate based on opaque algorithmic factors. Medium is strongest for writers prioritizing reach and frictionless publishing over economic independence and direct reader monetization.
  • Ghost.  Ghost is the closest thing to a like-for-like Substack replacement with a fundamentally different ownership model. Ghost is open-source and nonprofit-structured, which means there is no venture capital pressure to financialize the platform or extract revenue from writers. Ghost charges a flat monthly hosting fee — starting at around $9/month — with no percentage cut of subscription revenue. By comparison, Substack’s 10 percent cut of a publication generating $60,000 per year costs $6,000 annually; Ghost would cost $348. Ghost is also self-hostable: if Ghost the company were to close, a publisher could continue running their membership business indefinitely using the open-source code. The primary tradeoffs are less built-in audience discovery than Substack and somewhat weaker community/social features. Ghost is the strongest choice for established writers prioritizing control and economics.
  • Beehiiv.  Beehiiv was built by former Morning Brew executives and is optimized for email newsletter publishing and monetization. Its analytics are stronger than Substack’s, its ad monetization tools are more developed, and it has actively positioned itself as a platform-neutral alternative — arguing it is email software rather than a social platform, which sidesteps the content moderation quagmires Substack has repeatedly encountered. Beehiiv claims nearly 3,000 Substack migrations in a recent twelve-month period. It is a strong option for writers whose primary revenue model is advertising rather than subscriptions.
  • Patreon.  Patreon is better suited for multimedia creators and writers with tiered membership models. Lyz Lenz’s successful migration there in 2025 demonstrated it can work well for writers with established audiences. It offers more flexible membership tier structures than Substack and a different community model. Its primary limitation for newsletter-focused writers is that its email tooling is less sophisticated than dedicated newsletter platforms.
  • Kit.  Kit (formerly ConvertKit) prioritizes sophisticated email marketing automation — segmentation, automated sequences, conditional logic — that Substack simply does not offer. Writers who want to build complex reader journeys, segment their audience by interest or subscription level, or integrate their newsletter with other tools will find Kit significantly more capable. It charges on a per-subscriber basis rather than a revenue percentage.
  • Buttondown.  Buttondown is a lightweight, developer-friendly option for writers who want simplicity and low cost without the overhead of a full platform. Its web archive is limited compared to other options, but its newsletter tools are clean and functional. A good choice for writers who primarily want to send email and maintain a minimal web presence.

Larger monitors can be a giant productivity booster. Document review becomes dramatically more efficient when you can display full contract pages side by side without scrolling or zooming. Redlining becomes less tedious when the original and marked versions sit comfortably alongside each other at readable sizes. Research flows more smoothly when case law, statutes, and your brief occupy the same screen space. Eliminating even 60 seconds of window-switching per hour yields meaningful time savings over a year of practice.

Larger displays also reduce eye strain during marathon drafting sessions. Rather than squinting at compressed text or constantly toggling between windows, attorneys can work at comfortable font sizes while maintaining multiple reference materials in view. This ergonomic advantage translates to fewer headaches and sustained focus during demanding workdays.

Some prefer a single, expansive ultrawide monitor (34 inches or larger). This single expanse eliminates the divisive bezel, a feature preferred by those whose workflows require a seamless, panoramic view of complex data—such as large financial models or legal text comparisons. The choice between a multi-panel array and a single, formidable display is less a financial matter than a meditation on one’s preferred working geometry.

Adding monitors is straightforward on modern operating systems. The most effective configuration depends on the task and the available desk layout. Many prefer a central 27-inch display flanked by smaller screens for ancillary documents or communication streams.

Pro Tip: Get expert advice on finding high-quality monitors (and anything else you might want to buy) from trusted sources such as The New York Times Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, or PC Magazine.

The idea that buying some new piece of hardware or software will make our lives easier is tempting. It’s usually a bad idea.

Many professionals operate their core software—be it a word processor, spreadsheet, or project management platform—at only a fraction of its capacity, leaving a vast reservoir of time-saving features untapped. Becoming an expert in your most important tools is a major productivity multiplier.

Consider your primary writing tool, such as Microsoft Word. Going beyond basic text entry by mastering built-in features like Styles and Macros is transformative. Styles ensure consistent formatting, enable instant, document-wide changes, and automatically generate a professional table of contents or table of authorities, saving hours of manual adjustments and eliminating formatting headaches. Macros automate recurring tasks.

Pro Tip: Google Docs is a worthy competitor to MS Word—unless your organization has been assimilated by the Borg.

Bonus Pro Tip: Are macros too much for you? Learn just enough about them to identify where they would help you most, then ask your IT staff to develop one or more.

Monogamy is not a requirement—or even a good idea—when it comes to AI. Multiple AI perspectives help with high-stakes questions, unsettled law, or anything involving tax regulations (which remain confusing even to the IRS). When two models agree, you gain confidence. When they disagree, you gain a warning sign.

Pro Tip: Prioritize the best AI apps. Leading AI expert Ethan Mollick (author of the best-selling book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI) regularly shares his assessments of AI app quality. As I write, the most recent version (late 2025) is An Opinionated Guide to Using AI Right Now. I agree with him that Gemini 3.0 is currently the best available. The April 2025 edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report doesn’t cover the most recent developments, including recent improvements to Gemini, but the general discussion of how lawyers should evaluate apps is excellent.

When people think about malware, they often imagine someone clicking a suspicious attachment or downloading a shady file. In reality, one of the most dangerous forms of infection requires no obvious mistake at all. It’s called a drive-by download, and it remains a quiet but serious threat.

The Threat

A drive-by download occurs when malicious code is installed on a device simply by visiting a compromised website—often without any prompt or warning. According to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), these attacks exploit vulnerabilities in browsers, plugins, or operating systems to execute code automatically in the background.

This issue is tough even for top experts. Tom Mighell and Dennis Kennedy provided some suggestions in the Kennedy-Mighell Report (Part B, listener question) regarding unsubscribe links. Great ideas, but even their august minds could not come up with a way to have complete security.

What makes drive-by downloads particularly dangerous is how effectively they bypass human judgment. Even cautious users can be exposed. The site involved may be well known and legitimate, but compromised without the owner’s knowledge—a tactic documented repeatedly by security researchers.

The consequences range from irritating to severe. Drive-by infections may install spyware that captures credentials and browser sessions, or ransomware that encrypts entire systems. The FBI has warned that ransomware attacks increasingly begin with silent exploitation rather than user-initiated downloads (FBI ransomware guidance). In professional environments such as law firms or healthcare organizations, these infections can lead to data breaches, ethical violations, and regulatory exposure.

Attackers favor drive-by techniques because they scale efficiently. A single compromised website can infect thousands of visitors in hours. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified “watering hole” and drive-by attacks as particularly difficult to detect precisely because victims often never realize how the infection occurred (NIST SP 800-53).

How to Reduce the Risk

No defense is perfect, but layered precautions significantly reduce exposure:

Mac OS vs. MS Windows?

Mac users sometimes believe they don’t need to worry as much about such threats. There is something to this, but the issue is more complicated than commonly believed. Kaspersky has a good summary of the relevant considerations.

Windows OS can be very safe — if it is set up and monitored by skilled IT pros. Most small and solo law firms don’t have this, so my sense is that macOS tends to be safer for them by reducing user choices. Windows reduces risk by enabling control—but only if exercised by skilled IT pros.

Summary

Drive-by downloads are dangerous not because users are careless, but because the attacks are engineered to exploit trust and invisibility. Awareness, combined with basic digital hygiene, remains the most reliable defense.

When people think about malware, they often imagine someone clicking a suspicious attachment or downloading a shady file. In reality, one of the most dangerous forms of infection requires no obvious mistake at all. It’s called a drive-by download, and it remains a quiet but serious threat.

A drive-by download occurs when malicious code is installed on a device simply by visiting a compromised website—often without any prompt or warning. According to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), these attacks exploit vulnerabilities in browsers, plugins, or operating systems to execute code automatically in the background.

This issue is tough even for top experts. Tom Mighell and Dennis Kennedy provided some suggestions in the Kennedy-Mighell Report (Part B, listener question), specifically regarding unsubscribe links. Great ideas, but even their august minds could not come up with a way to have complete security.

What makes drive-by downloads particularly dangerous is how effectively they bypass human judgment. Even cautious users can be exposed. The site involved may be well known and legitimate, but compromised without the owner’s knowledge—a tactic documented repeatedly by security researchers.

The consequences range from irritating to severe. Drive-by infections may install spyware that captures credentials and browser sessions, or ransomware that encrypts entire systems. The FBI has warned that ransomware attacks increasingly begin with silent exploitation rather than user-initiated downloads (FBI ransomware guidance). In professional environments such as law firms or healthcare organizations, these infections can lead to data breaches, ethical violations, and regulatory exposure.

Attackers favor drive-by techniques because they scale efficiently. A single compromised website can infect thousands of visitors in hours. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified “watering hole” and drive-by attacks as particularly difficult to detect precisely because victims often never realize how the infection occurred (NIST SP 800-53).

How to Reduce the Risk

No defense is perfect, but layered precautions significantly reduce exposure:

Mac OS vs. MS Windows?

Mac users sometimes believe they don’t need to worry as much about such threats. There is something to this, but the issue is more complicated than commonly believed. Kaspersky has a good summary of the relevant considerations.

Windows OS can be very safe — if it is set up and monitored by skilled IT pros. Most small and solo law firms don’t have this, so my sense is that macOS tends to be safer for them by reducing user choices. Windows reduces risk by enabling control—but only if exercised by skilled IT pros.

Summary

Drive-by downloads are dangerous not because users are careless, but because the attacks are engineered to exploit trust and invisibility. Awareness, combined with basic digital hygiene, remains the most reliable defense.

The Ambition Effect

The prevailing narrative surrounding Generative AI in the legal sector is one of unprecedented efficiency. The sales pitch is seductive in its simplicity: automate routine drafting and research, compress hours into minutes, and liberate attorneys for higher-value strategic thinking.

Yet, as the initial wave of adoption settles, a distinct counter-narrative is emerging from inside law firms. Many practitioners are discovering that integrating AI “powertools” into their workflow is not resulting in earlier departures from the office. In fact, they are often spending more time on a given project, not less.

The immediate, practical assumption is that the technology is simply immature. As documented recently by outlets like Quartz, the “hallucination” problem requires significant human intervention. The output is fast, but cleaning up the errors—fact-checking citations and smoothing out robotic prose—incurs a heavy “cleanup tax.” While experts like Carolyn Elefant have rightly pointed out strategies to mitigate this friction, the reality remains that current AI models are often timesinks disguised as accelerators.

However, if debugging were the primary issue, one could assume efficiency would inevitably win out as the models improve. There is a more nuanced, psychological shift occurring that suggests AI may never truly reduce total working hours for top-tier professionals.

Call it the “Ambition Effect.”

When you equip a highly motivated professional with a tool that dramatically lowers the barrier to execution, their horizon shifts. They do not look at the tool and think, “I can now do my usual standard of work in half the time.” They think, “I can now achieve a vastly superior standard of work in the same amount of time.”

In a pre-AI world, “sufficient” research or a “competent” first draft was often dictated by the sheer constraints of time and budget. Now, with an AI powertool, those constraints have loosened. Suddenly, it is feasible to explore three obscure alternative legal theories instead of just the primary one. It is possible to run deeper semantic analyses on opposing counsel’s previous filings, or to refine the rhetorical structure of a brief until it is not just accurate, but compelling.

The goalpost hasn’t moved; the attorneys have voluntarily pushed it further back.

The irony of this “labor-saving” revolution is that it is fueling an escalation in quality. The end product delivered to the client is undeniably better, deeper, and more polished. But for the lawyers themselves, these tools are not a shortcut to the weekend. They are simply an engine that allows them to drive much further down the same demanding road.

Obtaining good healthcare is not always easy. Not every doctor is a Marcus Welby clone. And as the old joke goes, 50% of doctors graduated in the lower half of their classes, right? Burnout and pressure to meet daily patient-volume quotas mean many patients don’t receive the attention they deserve and expect.

Lawyers who want to stay healthy should be proactive. Increasingly, the first place I go for health advice is an AI app. Don’t let fear of mistakes prevent you from supplementing the advice you get from your doctor by seeking help from your favorite AI app. If you are smart enough to pass the bar exam, you should be able to recognize whether advice is “self-authenticating,” so that you can usually distinguish good advice from bad. Seek guidance from other sources if you are unsure.

Harvard Medical School’s collection of products targeted for lay audiences is my go-to source for supplemental healthcare advice. These include the Harvard Health Annual book, newsletters, an online resource index on common conditions, an online collection of articles on various topics, and even a blog. 

I find their Special Health Reports particularly valuable. They are available in print ($20) or ebooks ($18). Are they worth it? I have collected at least 10, including Knee and Hip Pain,  Functional Fitness, and Pain Relief Without Drugs or Surgery. Their Pickleball report is on my reading list.

Pro Tip: If you are a bargain hunter who prefers reading online publications to print media, Harvard Medical School’s digital resource bundles are a bargain.

The AI landscape is changing so rapidly that even top experts struggle to keep up.

Leading AI expert Ethan Mollick is up for the challenge. The author of the best-selling book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI regularly updates his assessments of various AI apps. As I write, the most recent version (late 2025) is An Opinionated Guide to Using AI Right Now.

The April 2025 edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report doesn’t cover the absolute most recent developments, including significant improvements to Gemini, but its lawyer-specific approach has its benefits.

Tip of the day (and maybe the year:

Always consult more than one AI app when dealing with critical issues.

Monogamy is not the best strategy for AI. Multiple AI perspectives help with high-stakes questions, unsettled law, or anything involving tax regulations (which remain confusing even to the IRS). When two models agree, you gain confidence. When they disagree, you gain a warning sign. Either way, you avoid the embarrassment of citing a hallucinated case that appears in no reporter known to humankind.

Checking multiple AI systems isn’t about indecision. It’s about competence—and mildly hedging against robots who occasionally sound certain about things that simply aren’t true. A little redundancy never hurt anyone, especially lawyers.