Will bar advertising rules block this in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, or California?
No. The stack is built around those exact rules. Florida Rule 4-7.13 on misleading claims, Texas Rule 7.04 on past-results language, California Rule 7.1 through 7.5, New Jersey RPC 7.1, and the New York attorney advertising disciplinary rules all stay on a live compliance matrix. Every article, schema field, and subreddit post gets checked before anything publishes. Past-results disclaimers, client-choice disclaimers, and the attorney advertising label ship with every piece of content in the states that require them.
How does this work for a contingency-fee firm where cases take 18 months to close?
The reporting looks at intake volume and signed-case count, not settled-case revenue. A signed MVA at a 33.3 percent pre-suit fee is worth $40K to $250K once it resolves. We track how many of those sat-fee signs came from AI-cited channels versus PPC and referrals. The firm's CFO sees month-over-month movement in lead source and signed-case mix by month three. Settlement dollars post whenever the cases resolve, long after the retainer has paid back.
Do you handle referral-only practices that do not sign cases directly?
Yes. Referral-fee firms need a different prompt set. Instead of chasing accident-victim queries, we track attorney-to-attorney prompts like best trial firm for a seven-figure MVA in Tampa, or who refers catastrophic injury cases to Miami. The press mix also shifts. We push Law360 Litigation, Plaintiff Magazine, AAJ Trial, and state-specific plaintiff journal coverage instead of consumer outlets like AARP and USA Today. Same retainer, different targeting layer.
What about mass tort and MDL firms with national reach?
Mass tort is the highest-ROI use case we run. Camp Lejeune, 3M Combat Arms, Zantac, talc, PFAS, and social media addiction MDLs all surface in AI answers right now. The prompt set becomes the exposure itself, not a metro, so tracking covers queries like Camp Lejeune attorney deadline, PFAS water contamination lawsuit lawyer, and Ozempic stomach paralysis lawsuit. A national mass tort campaign usually needs 80 to 120 prompts tracked monthly instead of the 40-prompt local starting point.
Does this work for a solo attorney competing against Morgan and Morgan?
Solo attorneys are the cleanest fit. Morgan and Morgan spent more than $150 million on advertising in 2023. Nobody beats that on dollar-for-dollar PPC. The AI layer is different. Models prefer specificity over size. A solo who runs MVA cases in Jacksonville with a Claims Journal byline and three Reddit threads beats a generic Morgan slot in ChatGPT answers for Jacksonville-specific prompts. Spec your vertical tight, pick one metro, ship coverage every month. The national brands overlook local AI search completely.
How does this show up against John Foy, Jim Adler, and other billboard kings?
Billboards buy highway eyeballs. They do not buy the ChatGPT answer. A prospect stuck in rush-hour traffic reads a billboard, takes a picture, and then asks ChatGPT who the best PI attorney is in their city three days later. If you show up inside the AI answer, the billboard name becomes an option next to yours, not the default. Foy spends $3 million a year in Georgia billboards. We run firms that show up alongside him in the Atlanta ChatGPT answer for a fraction of that spend.
Do you place coverage that survives voir dire and opposing-counsel scrutiny?
Yes. Trial firms use our placements in voir dire prep and case positioning. Coverage on Law360, Claims Journal, AAJ Trial, and local broadcast affiliates like WSVN or WFLA is public, editorial, and cited. Opposing counsel cannot use it to impeach credibility the way they can with a paid PR-wire blast. We also draft every feature to avoid the comparative and superlative phrasing that could be flagged under state attorney advertising rules during a post-trial ethics review.
Is this compatible with past-results and testimonial disclaimers?
Every piece of schema and every article gets the standard prior-results disclaimer in the states that require it. California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and New York all have published rules on client testimonials and comparative results language. The disclaimer ships inside the JSON-LD property as a legally required note, as a footer on every published article, and inside the microcopy for any testimonial snippet. If your state allows testimonials only with specific phrasing, the compliance matrix enforces it at draft time, not after.
Can we run a disclaimer-heavy article without killing AI quotability?
Disclaimers go in the footer and inside the schema, not inside the paragraph the model quotes. ChatGPT and Perplexity pull the highest-signal sentence, which is usually the one describing the firm's focus or the verdict range. The disclaimer lives below that sentence as a separate block. The AI still cites the clean sentence. The bar still sees the compliant disclosure. Both constituencies get what they need. This is the specific reason generic content agencies break PI rules and specialized ones do not.
What happens on the PI strategy call?
Thirty minutes with Joey. He runs your firm name against 40 plus AI prompts live on screen for your metro and case types. You see which competitor firms get named in Tampa, Houston, or Phoenix. You see whether your firm ever surfaces. You get a three-pillar plan with specific article angles, specific schema gaps, and specific Reddit threads to enter. No deck, no junior account exec, no pressure to sign that afternoon.
