Law firms: Are you tracking AI visibility? How are potential clients finding you through ChatGPT/Perplexity?

This is the right question to be asking. Legal is one of the industries where AI search is having immediate impact.

Why legal is particularly affected:

• High-intent searches (“I need a lawyer for X”)
• Users want specific recommendations, not lists
• Trust and credibility are paramount
• Local search is crucial for most practices

What I’ve seen work for law firms:

1. Structured attorney data - Each attorney needs a profile page with schema markup including bar number, jurisdictions, practice areas, and credentials
2. Legal directory optimization - Chambers, Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers, Avvo presence with complete, consistent information
3. Case result documentation - AI systems look for evidence of outcomes and expertise
4. Google Business Profile - Fully optimized with all attorney names, practice areas, and reviews

The firms winning in AI search:

Have made their expertise machine-readable. It’s not enough to say “we’re great at corporate law” - you need structured data that proves it.

Partner at a boutique IP firm here. We started tracking AI visibility 6 months ago with Am I Cited, and here’s what we learned:

Our surprise:

For our niche (patent prosecution), we were actually getting recommended fairly well - better than larger generalist firms. The AI seemed to recognize our specialization.

What we think is working:

1. Deep specialization signals - Every page on our site reinforces our IP focus
2. Credential emphasis - Patent bar numbers, technical degrees prominently displayed
3. Published expertise - Our attorneys publish on IP topics regularly
4. Speaking engagements - Referenced by legal publications

The insight:

For specialized practice areas, depth of expertise matters more than firm size. AI systems are pretty good at matching specific needs to specialized practices.

Our generalist competitors don’t show up for specific IP queries even though they’re bigger. Their AI presence is diluted across too many areas.

Solo practitioner perspective here.

I’m competing against BigLaw for local family law queries - and winning.

When someone asks ChatGPT “best divorce lawyer in [my city]” or “who handles custody cases in [county],” I show up and many larger firms don’t.

What I think is working:

1. Google Business Profile obsession - 500+ reviews, all responded to, completely filled out
2. Location-specific content - Pages for each neighborhood and court I serve
3. Avvo and directory presence - 10.0 rating with detailed profile
4. Consistent NAP - Same info everywhere

The theory:

AI can’t verify “best” objectively, so it relies on signals like reviews, ratings, and consistency. A solo with a strong local presence can beat a firm that neglects these signals.

Local + specialized + visible = AI recommendations.

We’ve worked with 50+ law firms on AI visibility. Here’s what actually moves the needle:

Tier 1 - Must-haves:

• Complete, verified legal directory profiles
• Schema-marked attorney bio pages
• Optimized Google Business Profile
• Consistent NAP across all platforms

Tier 2 - Differentiators:

• Case results with clear matter types and outcomes
• Published thought leadership in legal publications
• Speaking engagements and awards documented
• Client testimonials with specifics

Tier 3 - Advanced:

• Wikipedia presence for the firm or notable partners
• Wikidata entries for attorneys
• Media coverage in major outlets
• Academic or bar association leadership roles

The common mistake:

Firms spend on traditional advertising while their digital presence is a mess. AI systems can’t recommend you if your data is inconsistent or invisible.

Fix the foundation before spending on ads.

Large firm perspective: we’re actually behind smaller firms on this.

Why BigLaw struggles with AI visibility:

1. Decentralized marketing - Each practice group does their own thing
2. Legacy website architecture - Hard to implement schema at scale
3. Partnership politics - Can’t feature some attorneys over others
4. Slow decision-making - Takes months to approve changes

What we’re finally doing:

• Firm-wide schema implementation project
• Consistent attorney bio templates
• Centralized directory management
• AI visibility monitoring

The irony:

We have more resources but less agility. Solo and small firms that can move fast are outmaneuvering us in AI search.

Don’t assume big firms have figured this out. Many are just starting.

From the tech side: the ABA advertising rules actually help with AI visibility.

Here’s why:

The ABA requires that all claims be factual and verifiable. This aligns perfectly with what AI systems want - specific, accurate, documentable information.

Firms that follow ABA rules closely tend to:

• Make specific, verifiable claims
• Document credentials properly
• Avoid puffery that AI systems discount

The firms that struggle:

Use vague language like “aggressive representation” or “fighting for you” - which means nothing to AI systems looking for specific expertise signals.

Be specific, be verifiable, follow the rules, and AI systems will find you more useful to cite.

PI attorney here. Our practice area is super competitive in traditional search.

AI search is different and I like it:

In Google, we’re fighting for rankings against firms with bigger ad budgets. In AI recommendations, it seems more about actual authority signals.

What’s working for us:

• Documented case results (with verdict amounts where allowed)
• Specialty certifications prominently displayed
• Medical-legal expertise highlighted
• Location-specific landing pages

The best part:

When someone asks AI “best car accident lawyer in [city],” they get a recommendation based on signals, not who paid the most. It feels more meritocratic.

We’re tracking with Am I Cited now and seeing steady improvements as we optimize.

A word of caution on ethics:

What you CAN’T control:

What AI says about you. If ChatGPT recommends your firm, you’re not “advertising” - the AI is making its own statement.

What you CAN control:

The accuracy of information you put out there. If your profiles have incorrect or misleading information, and AI systems pick it up, you could have ethics issues.

Practical recommendations:

1. Audit all your directory profiles for accuracy
2. Ensure all credentials listed are current and verified
3. Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate
4. Document everything - case results, specializations, credentials

AI amplifies whatever information is out there. Make sure what’s out there is accurate and compliant.

This is exactly what I needed. Here’s my action plan based on this thread:

Immediate (This month):

• Audit all attorney bios for consistency and credentials
• Implement LegalService and Person schema across the site
• Claim and complete all legal directory profiles
• Optimize Google Business Profile

Short-term (Q1):

• Create practice-area specific landing pages with clear expertise signals
• Document case results in structured format
• Set up AI visibility monitoring with Am I Cited
• Train attorneys to maintain consistent profiles

Long-term (This year):

• Pursue speaking/publishing opportunities for key attorneys
• Build Wikipedia presence for firm and senior partners
• Develop location-specific content for key markets
• Measure correlation between optimization and client acquisition

The insight that AI visibility can be more meritocratic than paid search is encouraging. We may not have the biggest ad budget, but we can have the best-structured data.

Thanks everyone for the practical guidance.