UNCHARTEDSEOSEO automation for law firms, with a fact lock on every claim.
Automated SEO is usable by a law firm on one condition: the system must be unable to publish a claim about your firm that you did not approve. That is what the fact lock does here. Every credential, every case result, every dollar figure, every jurisdiction and every statute reference comes from a registry your firm signed off, and a draft containing anything outside it is repaired or refused before it reaches you. Then a person at your firm approves the article before it publishes. Nothing goes live unattended. Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year.
One thing this page will not do: tell you what your advertising obligations are. We do not advise your firm on what it may publish, and nothing here states what any rule requires of your firm. Your firm decides what it will and will not publish. The system’s job is to make that decision hold on every article, automatically, instead of depending on somebody catching it.
What is SEO automation for law firms?
SEO automation for law firms is an automated content and ranking pipeline with a fact lock on the front of it. The system researches search demand, clusters it by intent, scopes what is already ranking, drafts the article, grades it, publishes it to WordPress and then measures what it did. What it cannot do is state a fact about your firm that is not in the registry your firm approved, and it cannot publish anything at all until a person at your firm signs it off. The automation is in the production. The authority over what is said stays with the firm.
That is a narrower promise than most automated content tools make, and the narrowness is the product. A tool that will write anything fluently is not useful to a firm that has to own every sentence on its website. A tool that physically cannot write the sentence your firm did not approve is a different kind of instrument, and it is the only kind that scales safely in a field where the specifics matter more than the prose.
Why is generic autoblogging a problem for a law firm specifically?
Most businesses that publish a wrong sentence lose a little credibility and fix the page. A law firm that publishes a wrong sentence about its own admissions, its own results or its own areas of practice has published something the firm now owns, under its own name, on its own domain, indefinitely. The sentence does not stay on the page either. It gets crawled, quoted back by answer engines, screenshotted and cached.
The failure is not that language models write badly for legal. They write beautifully for legal, which is exactly the problem. Trained on tens of thousands of law firm websites, a model asked to write a compelling personal injury page reaches for the sentences those pages are made of: award-winning attorneys, decades of combined experience, millions recovered, aggressive representation, specialists in catastrophic injury. Every one of those is a specific claim about a specific firm. A generator producing them for your firm is not being creative. It is completing a pattern, and the pattern has your firm’s name substituted into it.
The second failure is quieter and costs more over a year. Automated content programs run on volume, and volume without an inventory turns into a website competing with itself. Four pages about the same offense type, three about the same city, two hubs neither of which links to the other, and a firm that cannot work out why more publishing produced fewer rankings. Cannibalization is the most common self-inflicted injury on a law firm website and no amount of writing quality fixes it after the fact.
The third is authorship. Nobody accepts that the software wrote it. A prospective client reading your site, a referring firm checking you out, anyone at all reading the page holds the firm responsible for it, because the firm’s name is at the top. Whatever your firm’s internal standard for public communications is, an automated writer that operates outside it is not saving your firm time. It is deferring work, and it is deferring it to the least convenient moment.
Which sentences actually cause the trouble?
Not the descriptive ones. Nobody has ever had a difficult conversation about a paragraph explaining what a deposition is. The sentences that cause trouble are the ones that make marketing copy read well, and they cluster into six recognizable shapes.
Credential and status words
Board certified. Award winning. Recognized by. Named to. Fellow of. These attach a verifiable status to a named person, and a generator will attach them to whichever attorney the sentence flows best around. A credential that belongs to your senior partner arriving in an associate’s bio is not a stylistic problem.
Licensure and jurisdiction phrases
Admitted in. Licensed to practice before. Serving clients throughout. A page written about a city implies coverage of that city, and a generator writing thirty city pages will imply coverage of thirty places. Where your attorneys are admitted is a fact with one correct answer per attorney, and it is not one a writing tool can infer.
Results and dollar figures
Millions recovered. Seven-figure settlement. A ninety-eight percent success rate. These are the single most attractive sentences in legal marketing and the single most dangerous ones to generate, because a model will produce a plausible number where it has none. There is no such thing as an approximately correct settlement figure.
Statute, rule and case citations
Section numbers, rule numbers and case names come out of a language model perfectly formatted and sometimes attached to nothing. Formatting is not existence. On a law firm’s own website a citation that does not resolve is a specific, checkable error that a reader in your field will notice immediately.
Superlatives and comparisons
Best, top rated, number one, the leading firm in the state, better than the alternative. Generators produce these by default because the training data is full of them. Whether your firm publishes comparative language at all is a decision your firm makes once, and it should then be enforced everywhere rather than re-argued per article.
Outcome and promise language
We will get you. You can expect. Also the softer forms, which are harder to catch: designed to secure, so you walk away with. These slide in as tone rather than as claims, which is why a human reviewer scanning for facts often reads straight past them.
All six are categories, not phrases, which is why a banned-word list does not solve this. A banned-word list catches the word you thought of. The registry governs the category, and a claim of a governed kind that does not match an approved entry is a violation whatever wording it arrives in.
Why does checking an article against the open web not protect a firm?
Several content tools verify their output against public sources, and that is a real capability. It catches a misdated Supreme Court decision, a misspelled court name, a statistic attributed to the wrong agency. It does nothing whatsoever for the claims that matter on your website.
The reason is structural. The open web holds no authoritative record of which of your attorneys is admitted in which states this year, which practice areas your firm took on last quarter and which it now refers out, what your consultation actually costs, which recognitions are current, or how your managing partner wants the firm’s name written. That record exists in exactly one place, which is your firm. Until a system holds a copy your firm has approved, it has nothing to check a firm-specific claim against, and a check with nothing to check against returns a pass.
This is the difference between checking a claim and refusing to make it. Checking asks whether a claim looks supportable and leaves a reviewer to decide. We work the other way round: a claim that does not match the facts you approved is not written in the first place. Our position, which we have signed and hold to across every plan, is that we cannot publish a claim about your firm that you have not approved. The mechanism itself, described without the vertical, is on our fact-checked AI SEO page.
What does the fact lock refuse, and what does it let through?
Four worked examples, drawn from the registry categories rather than from any client’s file. The examples are written generically on purpose. No entry from any client registry appears on this page.
| A draft produces this | What happens, and why |
|---|---|
| Credential. “Our board certified trial attorneys have appeared in courts across the region.” | Refused. Board certification is a governed credential category. The phrase is checked against the credential entries attached to named attorneys in your registry. Applied to a group with no name attached, there is nothing to match, so the claim cannot be repaired into a true one and the draft is refused rather than softened. |
| Licensure. “Admitted in Oregon and Washington, we serve clients throughout the Pacific Northwest.” | Repaired or refused. Admissions are held per attorney. If your registry carries both states for the attorney the page is about, the sentence stands. If it carries one, the claim is repaired to the approved set. If the page names no attorney at all, the jurisdiction claim has no owner and the draft goes back. |
| Dollar figure. “We have recovered more than $40 million for injured clients.” | Refused. Results and figures are a governed category, and a figure is only publishable if your firm entered that figure with the wording it approved. If the category is empty, and many firms deliberately leave it empty, then no settlement, verdict, recovery total, success rate or win rate can appear on the site in any phrasing at all. |
| Citation. “Under section 12-345, a claim must be filed within two years.” | Refused. Citations are governed. A section, rule or case reference that is not on your approved list is a violation regardless of whether it happens to be correct, because the point of the rule is that the site does not publish authority the firm has not chosen to publish. Approve the citation with the text you want beside it and the draft uses what you approved. |
Two things that are deliberately not in that table. The lock does not decide whether a claim is a good idea, and it does not assess a legal question. It compares what the draft says about your firm against what your firm approved, and it is strict about the comparison. Judgment is a separate job and it belongs to a person at your firm.
What goes into a law firm’s fact registry?
Onboarding is not a questionnaire about your goals. It is the assembly of the only list of facts the drafting system will ever be permitted to state about your firm. Your firm supplies it, your firm approves every entry, and nothing enters it on our authority. These are the categories a firm fills in, with the kind of sentence each one governs.
Practice areas, and the ones you decline
The areas the firm actually takes on, written the way the firm describes them, plus the matters the firm refers out. The second list prevents the classic automated failure, which is a well written page inviting inquiries about a matter type nobody at the firm handles. A topic outside your approved areas never becomes a page, because the research step cannot propose one.
Admissions and jurisdictions, per attorney
Each attorney, each state or federal court where that attorney is admitted, and the year if you want it stated. Multi-office firms also record which office serves which jurisdictions, so a city page cannot imply coverage the firm does not have. A draft may name the admissions you listed, attached to the attorney you attached them to, and no others.
Credentials, titles and honors
Degrees, clerkships, certifications where an attorney holds one, memberships, publications, teaching appointments, languages, and any recognition the firm has decided it will cite, with the year. Also the titles: partner, of counsel, associate, managing attorney. This is the category the lock refuses most often, because a generator reaches for status words by reflex.
Results and dollar figures
Any number about a matter the firm has handled, if the firm publishes results at all, in the approved wording and with any disclaimer the firm attaches. An empty category is not a gap. It is an instruction, and it is the single most powerful entry in the whole registry, because it removes the most dangerous sentence in legal marketing from your website’s future in one decision.
Statutes, rules and case citations
Section numbers, rule numbers, code references and case names, each approved with the text the firm wants beside it. Any citation not on the list is treated as a violation. If you want a page to cite authority, you approve the citation first and the draft uses what you approved rather than reconstructing it from memory.
Fees, consultations and terms
Whether consultations are free or paid and on what terms, whether the firm takes contingency matters and how the firm describes that, flat fee arrangements, retainer language, and anything about cost the firm wants on a public page. Fee language attracts invention because prospective clients search for it constantly. Every fee sentence on your site comes from this list or does not exist.
Firm history, tenure and size
Founding year, attorney count if you want it stated, office count and locations. Tenure claims drift because generators round up and write “for over three decades” where the correct figure is twenty two years. The registry holds the founding year and years in practice are computed from it, so no draft can age your firm to make a sentence scan better.
Identity, offices and contacts
Firm name exactly as it should be written, office addresses and phone numbers, hours, and the spelling and capitalization of every attorney’s name. Small, dull, and the source of a surprising share of real defects, because a site that writes your firm’s name three different ways damages the entity clarity that both search engines and answer systems use to work out who you are.
The banned list
The phrases your firm will not publish, whatever the reason. Outcome language. Best, top rated, number one, leading firm. Words your firm has chosen not to use about itself. A competitor’s name. Anything your managing partner has struck from copy before. A draft using a banned phrase is refused rather than softened, which matters, because softening is how a banned claim survives an edit.
Everything you never want said
The registry is two lists, not one. The approved list is what may be stated. The banned list is what may not be, in any phrasing. Firms usually find the second list is the one that gets longer over the first quarter, as things a partner has objected to over the years finally get written down somewhere the system can act on them.
For scale: one client registry in the system holds 24 facts, 10 numbers, 6 category rules, 37 banned terms, as recorded 2026-09-02. That is one registry, not an average across clients. A law firm’s tends to run longer on admissions and credentials, because those are held per attorney rather than per firm.
What happens when a draft breaks one of your rules?
One of two things, and which one depends on whether the claim can be made true by matching it to an approved entry.
Repair. If the draft has overstated something that has a correct version in the registry, the claim is rewritten to the approved entry. Three offices where the registry holds two becomes two. A credential attached to the wrong attorney is moved or removed. A tenure figure rounded up is corrected to the year the registry holds.
Refusal. If there is no approved entry to repair the claim towards, the draft does not publish. It does not publish in a softened form, it does not publish with the sentence deleted and the argument left dangling, and it does not go into a queue that eventually times out into publication. A refusal is not a failed job. It is information: when a topic keeps producing drafts your firm will not sign, that is usually a registry gap rather than a writing problem, and the fix is an entry your firm adds or a topic your firm strikes.
The gates do not loosen themselves and there is no setting that relaxes them under deadline. That is the whole design intent. A rule that can be turned off in a busy week is a rule that will be off in the week it mattered.
SEO automation for law firms: what is automated and what is not
The honest answer is a division of labor, not a slogan about hands-off marketing. Here is where the line sits and why it sits there.
Automated: the parts that are mechanical, repetitive at volume, and that a firm’s own people are worst placed to do. Live search results research on the terms your practice areas actually generate. Clustering those terms by intent, so a page about what to do after a collision is not quietly competing with a page about how long you have to file. A cannibalization check before any new page is proposed, run against the pages you already have. Competitor scoping that measures what the pages currently outranking you actually contain, in length, structure, schema and answer placement, rather than guessing at it. Drafting against the registry, with on-page grading and a readability floor, because a page a worried person cannot follow does not convert whatever position it holds. Then the gates, publishing to WordPress with a snapshot taken first, and daily measurement afterwards.
Not automated: judgment, and everything downstream of it. The system does not decide what your firm’s position on a question of law is, does not choose which matters you want more of, and does not advise. It writes about what your firm has already approved saying, in the way your firm approved saying it. The registry is authored by your people. The approval is given by a person at your firm. The decision to change a rule belongs to the firm.
The reason to draw the line exactly there is practical rather than philosophical. A firm has one genuinely scarce resource, which is the attention of the people who bill. The useful question is what that attention should be spent on. Spending it on keyword research is waste. Spending it on reading a draft for accuracy and tone is the one task nobody outside the firm can do at all. So the pipeline is arranged to hand a reviewer a finished, checked, registry-clean draft with every governed claim marked, and to spend their minutes on the judgment call rather than on the fact check the machine has already performed.
| Automated by the system | Not automated: stays with your firm |
|---|---|
| Facts you approved. Every draft checked against the registry: practice areas, admissions, credentials, citations, fees, dates, banned phrases. | Writing the registry. Every entry is authored and approved by your firm. Nothing enters it on our authority. |
| Keyword research. Live search results research, intent clustering, and a cannibalization check before any new page is proposed. | Approving the topics. An area you do not take on never becomes a page, because it is not in the registry. |
| Competitor scoping. Measures what the pages ranking for your terms contain: length, structure, schema, answer placement. | Deciding what your firm says about it, and what your firm will not say at all. |
| Drafting. Written against your registry, with on-page grading and a readability floor. | Judgment. The system writes about approved facts. It does not analyze a matter and it does not advise. |
| Gates. Fact lock, on-page checks, readability, duplication ceiling. A violation is repaired to the registry or the draft is refused. | Changing a rule. The gates never loosen themselves and no plan turns them off. |
| The approval screen. Assembles the draft, the governed claims, their sources, the links and the check results into one view. | The signature. A person at your firm, every publish, every plan, with no switch that removes the step. |
| Publishing. Snapshot taken first, page published to WordPress, rollback available as one action. | Choosing to roll back, and choosing when a page comes down. |
| Measurement. Daily rank tracking, Google AI Overview citation state on the daily citation set, technical audit, monthly backlink opportunity report. | Deciding what to do about it, with a monthly strategy session on the Scale plan. |
Who approves an article before it publishes?
A person at your firm. Not us, not a reviewer we supply, and not an automated approval step wearing a person’s name. Neither plan includes legal review of your content by us, and we would not offer it: your firm’s own reviewer is the approver, because your firm is the only party that can hold that authority.
Approval before publishing is offered by most content tools as a mode you can switch on. All five rivals ship a draft mode and all five let you switch it off. Here it is not a mode. There is no unattended publishing on any plan and no setting that produces it. That is the difference worth stating plainly: not that approval exists, but that it is mandatory, and that what reaches the reviewer has already been enforced against a registry rather than merely spell-checked against the open web.
The practical consequence is that the volume ceiling of this system is not our capacity. It is your reviewer’s. That is a real constraint and we would rather you plan around it than discover it in month two. Article production runs to a ceiling of up to 30 articles per month; what your firm actually publishes is whatever your reviewer signs.
What is on the approval screen?
The draft as it would publish
Not an excerpt and not a summary. The full page, with its headings, its internal links and its structured data, exactly as it would appear if you sign.
Every governed claim, marked to its source
Each claim the registry governs is marked with the entry it came from, so checking a credential or a fee is a glance rather than a hunt through a document nobody can find.
The target term and the intent it sits under
What the page is for, which cluster it belongs to, and the cannibalization result against the pages you already have, so you can see it is not going to fight one of your own.
The check results
The on-page grade, the readability reading, the link set and the fact-lock result. If anything was repaired against the registry on the way here, the repair is visible rather than silent.
Three actions: approve, request changes, refuse. Nothing publishes while a draft is unresolved and the queue does not route around a reviewer who is busy. After you approve, a snapshot of the page as it currently exists is taken before the publish runs, so rollback stays a single action. That matters more than it sounds: a firm that can undo a page in seconds reviews more calmly than a firm that cannot.
How much of an attorney’s time does this actually take?
Firms resist marketing review because of what they have experienced it to be, which is line-editing an agency’s guesswork into something the firm can live with. That is a different job from confirming an already-checked draft is accurate.
When the credentials, the fees, the citations, the admissions and the practice areas have already been matched against a list your firm signed, the reviewer is no longer fact checking. They are reading for tone, emphasis and judgment, on a page where every governed claim is marked to its source. We will not put a minutes figure on this page, because we have not measured it across law firms and a number we cannot show you the sample for is worth nothing. What we will say is what the design is for: to move the reviewer’s time off the fact check and onto the only part a machine has no business doing.
If your reviewer is the constraint, and in most firms they will be, the right response is fewer, better pages rather than a faster review. The system will produce to your ceiling. It has no opinion about whether you should use all of it.
What does Google actually say about AI-assisted content?
Worth reading in Google’s own words rather than in a vendor’s summary of them. From Google Search Central, in a post dated Wednesday, 8 February 2023, titled “Google Search’s guidance about AI-generated content”:
“When it comes to automatically generated content, our guidance has been consistent for years. Using automation—including AI—to generate content with the primary purpose of manipulating ranking in search results is a violation of our spam policies.”
Google Search Central Blog, 8 February 2023. Source: developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content. Fetched and quoted 2026-09-04.
Read the post in full at that URL and the position it takes is that the method of production is not itself the test. What is being described as a violation is the purpose: content generated primarily to manipulate ranking. That is a distinction with a practical consequence for a firm deciding whether to automate at all.
It is also why the registry is upstream of the drafting rather than downstream of it. A pipeline whose only instruction is to produce ranking pages will drift towards the thing Google’s post describes. A pipeline that can only assemble pages out of facts a firm approved, aimed at questions the firm’s prospective clients actually ask, is producing something for a reader first. We are not going to claim that structure earns your firm a ranking. Nobody outside Google can promise a position and we do not.
One thing we cannot tell you about this term. Whether Google shows an AI Overview for “seo automation for law firms”, and whether any page is cited in it, is something our 2026-09-04 measurement of this query could not read at all. That state is unknown, which is not the same as absent, and we would rather say so than round an unknown into a claim. On your own tracked keywords it is measured directly, every day, which is the difference between a term we instrument for you and a term we merely looked at once.
What will the system never do for a law firm?
It does not exercise judgment
The system does not analyze a matter, does not take a position on an unsettled question, and does not write advice. It writes about facts your firm approved. Which practice areas to pursue is a business decision the pipeline supports with research and does not make for you.
It does not review your obligations
We do not tell you what your firm may or may not say, and no plan includes that service. The registry is your firm’s statement of its own standard. The system enforces the standard you set. Setting it is your firm’s work and it stays that way.
It does not publish unattended
There is no plan, mode or setting on which an article reaches your website without a person at your firm approving it. If that is the feature you are shopping for, this is the wrong product and it will be the wrong product next year too.
It does not fill an empty registry
An empty category is an instruction, not a prompt for suggestions. If your results category is empty, the system will not offer to populate it, infer entries from your existing site, or ask again next month.
Not available today, stated plainly
- Publishing is WordPress only. No other platform is supported.
- Citation tracking covers Google AI Overviews. Prompt tracking across other assistants is not offered.
- There is no backlink network and no link exchange. Nothing here promises a placed link.
- Content is English only.
- No unattended publishing, and no plan on which the approval step can be switched off.
- No ranking position is promised, by us or by anyone outside Google.
One clarification, because two sentences on this page could otherwise be read against each other. Early access to new capabilities on the Scale plan means a new capability reaches Scale accounts first once it exists. It is not a commitment that anything on the list above is being built, and nothing on that list is a roadmap item.
Firms in other regulated fields run the same pipeline against a different registry: medical practice SEO, financial services SEO and licensed home services SEO, all under the regulated industries hub.
Which pages does a firm actually get, and in what order?
Legal demand is a tree. Personal injury branches by vehicle, injury and liability situation. Criminal defense branches by offence. Family law branches by issue, estate work by instrument, employment by claim type. Firms that flatten that tree into one services page lose to firms that map it, and firms that map it with invented detail create a different problem entirely.
1. The audit, first
Before anything is written, the site you have is read: broken links, redirect chains, schema state, internal link structure and index status through Search Console. On a firm site the internal link and schema findings usually matter most, because practice area sections that never link to each other never accumulate the authority the architecture was supposed to build.
2. Practice area hubs
A hub for each area the firm actually practices, defined properly rather than described in a paragraph. Every claim about what the firm handles comes from the practice area entries your firm approved, which is also what stops a hub appearing for work you refer out.
3. Spokes, gated by the cannibalization check
Sub-topics, offence types and case types that carry real demand, interlinked so authority concentrates rather than scatters. A spoke is only proposed after the check clears it against the pages you already have, which is the step most volume programs skip.
4. Attorney profiles
The pages where an invented credential does the most damage and an accurate one does the most good. Bios assemble from the admissions, degrees, titles and honors in the registry, attached to the attorney they belong to, written consistently across the site so each person resolves as one entity everywhere.
5. Jurisdiction and office pages
Location pages that state coverage the firm actually has. The registry ties each office to the jurisdictions it serves. Multi-office firms get each office written as itself rather than as a find-and-replace of the last one, which is the pattern readers and search engines both recognize instantly.
6. Question content
People in legal trouble search in questions, at night, in their own words. Structured answers to the real ones catch the moment somebody decides to look for help, and a clean, correctly attributed answer is what gets a firm named when the same question is put to an answer engine instead of a search box.
Every one of those page types is produced by the same gated pipeline, in the same order, with the same fact lock and the same approval step. The full seven-step sequence, without the vertical, is on how it works.
How is any of this measured?
A managing partner should be able to answer two questions without calling a meeting: are we moving, and on what. These are the instruments.
Daily rank tracking
Position history on your tracked keywords, read daily, so a movement carries a date instead of hiding inside a monthly average that never says when the change happened. Up to 25 tracked keywords on Launch, up to 75 on Scale.
Google AI Overview citation state
Whether Google shows an AI Overview for a keyword and whether that Overview cites your firm. A rank read is cheap and a citation read is a heavier request, so the daily citation set is the smaller of the two and we say which is which: on one client account, 105 keywords rank-tracked, 33 under daily SERP and citation research, as recorded 2026-09-02. Google AI Overviews only, and never a sample of prompts inside another assistant.
Full technical site audit
Broken links, redirect chains, schema state, internal link structure and index status through Search Console, at onboarding and refreshed monthly.
Research before building
Keyword research, clustering from live search results, and a cannibalization check before any new page is built, so a new practice area page never competes with one you already rank with.
Monthly backlink opportunity report
Domains linking to two or more of your competitors and not to you, exported with outreach targets. On three recent client sites that report found 231, 99 and 288 gap domains. Those are opportunities found, not links delivered: we do not place links and we do not run an exchange.
Strategy, on the Scale plan
A 60-minute monthly strategy session, delivered personally, plus competitor teardown reports, Search Console integration, and early access to new capabilities as they ship. Support responds within one business day, which is explicitly not same-day.
Timing, stated honestly: no timeline is promised on this page. What is measurable from week one is the instrument rather than the outcome, which is daily positions on your tracked keywords, Google AI Overview citation state on the daily citation set, and the technical audit findings, so the absence of movement is as observable as its presence. How long a contested practice area head term takes depends on your market, your competitors and the state of the site you start from, and any vendor quoting you a month number for a legal term is quoting you a feeling.
What has the gate actually caught, and what has it shipped?
Four figures. Each carries the base it was read from, and each reading carries the date it was read. The first is a set of incidents rather than a reading taken on one day, so it carries a base and no date. None of them is from a law firm, because we do not have a law firm client whose numbers we could publish, and we would rather show you the wrong vertical honestly than the right one invented.
What the gate refused on live sites
The check has caught real errors on live sites: around 1,000 unapproved claims on one client’s site, nine fabricated customer reviews on our own site, and six invented dates caught in testing.
Base: three separate incidents on properties we can name internally. Not a rate, not a daily figure, and not a reading taken on one date.Deployment volume, with the snapshot rule
Over 300 page deployments across four client sites since August 2026, every one preceded by a snapshot. Failed deploys are not counted as deployments.
Denominator: four client sites, August 2026 to date.What is under measurement right now
105 keywords rank-tracked, 33 under daily SERP and citation research.
One client account, as recorded 2026-09-02. A count of keywords under instrument, not a count of keywords ranking, and the citation set is deliberately the smaller of the two.Position 1 holdings we can name
Two client terms held position 1 in the 2026-09-02 captures: “nationwide property search” and “elevator smoke testing Portland”. Neither client is a law firm and neither term is a legal term.
Captured 2026-09-02. Two keywords, named, from two client sites.What we are deliberately not showing you: any fleet-wide citation ratio, any success rate, and any figure we could not date. If a number on this page ever loses its date or its denominator, treat it as withdrawn.
What does SEO automation for a law firm cost?
Two plans. There is no third tier, no custom enterprise quote and no figure that only appears after a call.
- The fact lock on every draft
- Approval by a person at your firm on every publish
- Publishing to WordPress with a snapshot before every change
- Up to 25 tracked keywords, rank-tracked daily
- Google AI Overview citation state on the daily citation set
- Full technical site audit, refreshed monthly
- Monthly backlink opportunity report
- Everything in Launch
- Up to 75 tracked keywords
- 60-minute monthly strategy session, delivered personally
- Competitor teardown reports
- Search Console integration
- Support response within one business day, explicitly not same-day
- Early access to new capabilities as they ship
Billing is monthly or annually. Annual is two months free. Article production runs to a ceiling of up to 30 articles per month; what publishes is whatever your reviewer signs. Cancel anytime. Your plan runs to the end of the period you have paid for. Neither plan includes legal review of your content by us.
SEO automation for law firms: straight answers
Can a law firm safely automate SEO content?
Parts of it. Research, clustering, competitor scoping, drafting against an approved fact registry, on-page and readability checks, publishing with a snapshot, and daily measurement are automated here. Judgment, the contents of the registry, and the approval of every publish stay with the firm. The fact lock enforces that boundary on every draft rather than trusting a reviewer to catch everything. Whether it is right for your firm is a decision only your firm can make, and this page does not make it for you.
What is a fact registry, and what does a law firm put in it?
It is the list of facts your firm approves before any drafting begins: practice areas you handle and matters you refer out, admissions and jurisdictions per attorney, credentials, titles and honors, results and dollar figures if you publish them at all, approved statute and case citations, fee and consultation terms, founding year and office details, and a banned list of phrases your firm will never publish. Your firm authors it and approves every entry.
Can the system invent a bar admission or a credential?
No. Credentials and admissions are a governed category. If an admission, certification, title or honor is not in your registry attached to that attorney, no draft can state it. A draft that reaches for one is repaired to match the registry, and where there is no approved entry to repair it towards, the draft is refused instead of softened.
Will it publish case results or settlement figures?
Only if your firm has entered approved results in the registry, in the wording and with any disclaimer your firm attaches to them. Many firms leave that category deliberately empty, which instructs the system that no settlement, verdict, recovery total or success rate may appear on the site in any phrasing at all.
Does someone at the firm have to review every article?
Yes. A person at your firm approves every publish, on every plan, and there is no setting that turns it off. The reviewer sees the finished draft with every registry-governed claim marked against its source, so the review is a judgment call rather than a fact check. Neither plan includes legal review of your content by us.
What about statutes and case citations?
Citations are a governed category, because generators produce them fluently and sometimes without a real source. Any citation not on your approved list is treated as a violation. If you want a page to cite authority, you approve the citation first with the text you want beside it, and the draft uses what you approved rather than reconstructing it.
How is this different from an autoblogger that has a draft mode?
Two ways. Approval here is mandatory rather than a mode that can be switched off, and all five rivals ship a draft mode and all five let you switch it off. And what reaches the reviewer has already been enforced against a registry of facts your firm signed, not merely checked against the open web. A web fact check can confirm a general fact. It cannot know which courts your attorneys are admitted in or what your consultation costs.
How long before a firm sees movement?
No timeline is promised on this page, and we will not put a month number on a legal term. What is measurable from the first week is the instrument: daily positions on your tracked keywords, Google AI Overview citation state on the daily citation set, and the technical audit findings, so the absence of movement is as observable as its presence. How long a contested practice area head term takes depends on the market, the competitors and the state of the site at the start. Nobody outside Google can promise a position, and we do not.
Do you track ChatGPT or Perplexity for law firms?
No. Google AI Overview citation tracking is what exists today: on the keywords in the daily citation set, whether Google’s AI Overview cites your firm. That set is deliberately narrower than the rank-tracked set, and on one client account the split is 105 keywords rank-tracked, 33 under daily SERP and citation research, as recorded 2026-09-02. Prompt tracking across other assistants is not offered and is not claimed anywhere on this site.
Do you have law firm clients whose results you can show me?
Not today, and we will not manufacture one. The figures on this page come from other verticals and each carries its date and its base, including two position 1 holdings from the 2026-09-02 captures that belong to clients who are not law firms. If a law firm result appears on this page in future it will arrive with the same date and denominator as everything else here.
Who owns the registry and the content if we leave?
The registry is your firm’s. It is not a template we fill in, no entry is added on our authority, and the pages published to your WordPress site are on your site. Cancel anytime. Your plan runs to the end of the period you have paid for.
What does it cost?
Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year. Billing is monthly or annually and annual is two months free. Both plans include the fact lock, approval by a person at your firm on every publish, snapshot and rollback, daily rank tracking, Google AI Overview citation state, the technical audit and the monthly backlink opportunity report.
Page reviewed 2026-09-04. Every figure above carries its date and its denominator, or it is removed.
Updated September 6, 2026