Inserviss LabsWhat you’ll see
Your console, from day one
Consultation opportunities, overnight work, reach, matters influenced — one live view.
Opportunities your agents found
Ranked by how fast you can win them
"Best mass tort firm for [litigation]"
Nobody cited yet · ~310 asks/month · you have deep experience
"Is it too late to file for [claim type]"
High value · deadline is stale on directories · winnable in ~2 weeks
"Top M&A firm for [deal type]"
Nobody cited yet · ~140 asks/month · matches your deal sheet
"[Litigation] filing deadline" — ChatGPT repeats a date that passed six weeks ago
A claimant could rely on it and miss the real deadline
"[Attorney] practice contact" — cited, but they left the firm two years ago
A credibility and conflicts problem you didn’t create
Confidential — reviewed by your bar-compliance team before anything goes public
Your AI Visibility Score
One number. Every engine. Never blended.
0–100 for whether AI names your firm and gets deadlines, practice areas and bios right — weighted toward where legal buyers actually ask. Toggle three months forward.
Illustrative — a sample firm
0F
Named by AI · How often assistants name the firm at all0
Vs. competitors · Share of the answer next to rival firms and directories0
Facts correct · Whether deadlines, practice areas and attorney bios are right and current0
Listed where AI looks · Profile completeness across Chambers, Legal 500 and the rest of the seven0
Site AI can read · Whether the firm’s eligibility and matters pages are machine-readable0
Where the firm stands, engine by engine — never blended
Google AI Overviewsthe default first touch for “do I have a case”Not cited
Geminidominant first touch alongside Google AINot cited
ChatGPTfast-growing for eligibility & deadline questionsNot cited
Perplexitywhere research-oriented claimants check sourcesNot cited
Microsoft Copilotwhere GCs & deal teams benchmark outside counselNot cited
Anthropic Claudeincreasingly powers internal legal research toolsNot cited
AI rarely names this firm — and when it does, it repeats a filing deadline or an attorney bio that’s out of date. Claimants and GCs are being routed to Chambers, Legal 500 and the other directories instead.
Knowledge graph
The asset that compounds
Every month, AI verifies more facts about your firm — practice areas, filing deadlines, representative matters, attorney bios, directory profiles — and they stay. A competitor starting today is months behind.
Scout — verified factMaker — published answerAnchor — directory profile placement
A sample of the graph. Scout verifies the facts, Maker publishes the answers, Anchor gets the seven directories right — and it only ever grows. Illustrative figures.
Monthly report
One report. Every month.
Your score and its trend, citations by engine, where you stand against rivals, what the agents did, and what needs your bar-compliance review.
Illustrative sample — not a real client’s data.
Monthly AI Visibility Report
Halbrook Trial Group
August 2026
Delivered 1 September 2026
Across 6 engines, 136 tracked queries, 4 named competitors.
AI Visibility Score ·
Halbrook now appears in roughly one in three AI answers about personal-injury and mass-tort questions in its markets — a month ago it appeared in almost none. On the “is it too late to file” and case-value questions, a directory still answers in your place.
Key numbers
33%
Overall citation rate
▲ +12pts
2nd
Share of voice, 4 named rivals
▲ from 5th
97%
Deadline-accuracy score
▲ +11pts
19
New knowledge-graph entities
▲ 152 total
Citation rate by engine — never blended
Google AI Overviews39%
Gemini34%
ChatGPT32%
Perplexity28%
Microsoft Copilot — new this month24%
Anthropic Claude21%
Copilot grounding data — new source, live since domain verification
54
Grounding queries matched your practice areas
16
Consultation-intent queries, of 54
3
Pages cited (0 last month)
5 of 16
Consultation-intent queries you now win
▲ from 1 of 16
Citation share — you vs. named competitors
“Is it too late to file a personal injury claim”
“Best mass tort firm for [litigation]”
“Is Halbrook Trial Group actually litigating or referring”
Flagged for your review
FixChatGPT is repeating a mass-tort filing deadline that passed six weeks ago — sent to Maker for correction.
Gap“Statute of limitations for a truck accident lawsuit” has no answer page — 11 grounding queries a month, never cited.
What your agents did in August
Scout verified your Bing Webmaster Tools domain — Copilot grounding data is now live
Maker published “Is it too late to file? Deadlines by state, kept current” with full FAQ schema
Scout re-sampled 136 tracked questions across all six engines
Anchor submitted a corrected Chambers profile — pending platform review
While the office was closed for the weekend
Scout flagged Perplexity citing a retired attorney as an active practice contact — escalated to Maker
Maker rebuilt the representative-matters page from a PDF into a citable page — re-cited on Google AI within 72 hours
Anchor secured a verified data point on your Super Lawyers profile
Knowledge graph — your persistent asset
152
Entities tracked (+19)
700
Verified connections (+158)
93%
Average confidence score
The graph is yours and it compounds. Every month it holds more verified facts about your firm — practice areas, filing deadlines, representative matters, attorney bios, directory profiles — so answers get harder to get wrong and harder for anyone else to replicate. Stop, and it stops growing; stay, and each month starts further ahead than the last.
Focus for September
Close the truck-accident statute-of-limitations content gap — 11 grounding queries a month, unanswered
Push citation share on “best mass tort firm for [litigation]” past the 72% rival lead
Complete the Avvo and Justia profile verification
FAQ
The detail, if you want it
When a claimant asks ChatGPT if it's too late to file, or a GC's Copilot search benchmarks outside counsel, the answer is built from Chambers, Legal 500, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Martindale, Avvo and Justia — seven directories, not your own site.¹ Inserviss measures exactly where you're losing the citation across all five engines, rebuilds your eligibility pages and representative-matters content into structured, answer-first pages the engines can quote, and owns your profile on each of the seven directories. Every claim is built to the strictest applicable jurisdiction, with a per-state audit trail.
Three conversations your firm doesn't hear. The missed deadline: an engine repeats a mass-tort settlement date that passed six weeks ago. The buried deal sheet: a GC's Copilot search never surfaces your deal experience because it's a static PDF, so it cites your Legal 500 blurb instead. The relocated attorney: someone who left two years ago still shows as an active practice contact. Even Am Law 100 firms rank below their own directory profiles for their own name³ — and 487 AI-generated errors turned up in 2025 court filings, ten times the 2024 total, 37.8% of them from licensed attorneys.²
Two buyer motions, two priority orders — one Scout / Maker / Anchor system. For personal injury and mass tort: Google AI and Gemini are the dominant first touch for “do I have a case”, ChatGPT is fast-growing for eligibility and deadline questions, and Perplexity is where research-oriented claimants check sources before committing. For M&A and corporate: Copilot is where GCs and deal teams benchmark outside counsel, Claude increasingly powers internal research tools, and Google AI and ChatGPT carry the broader reputation layer. Directory visibility — Chambers, Legal 500 and the rest of the seven — is the connective tissue across both.
One system, three jobs, roughly 20 / 40 / 40. Scout tracks citation frequency and deadline accuracy across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity. Maker is the on-domain fix: answer-first eligibility pages, structured deal-experience content, full schema, server-side rendering and an llms.txt. Anchor is off-domain — profile ownership across all seven directories, Wikidata, press and bar-compliance-reviewed community presence. Everything runs through review built to the strictest applicable state (effectively New York's or Florida's requirements), under ABA Formal Opinion 512, with a per-state audit trail: Draft → Review → Publish → Monitor.
On your site, Maker turns a generic representative-matters PDF into a citable page, static undated eligibility pages into answer-first current ones, outdated attorney bios into current, and adds schema and an llms.txt. Off your site, Anchor takes your Chambers and Legal 500 listings from thin to complete, Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers from outdated to verified, Avvo and Justia from incomplete to complete, and your Wikidata and press presence from sparse to established. Every change is tracked with a before, an after, and the date it moved.
Mostly not. Most of it is correcting and structuring what already exists — bios, eligibility pages, deal experience — not new promotional claims.
Every piece is built to the strictest applicable jurisdiction by default (effectively New York's or Florida's requirements), with a per-state audit trail — not the most permissive state's rules.
We do the actual rebuild — Chambers, Legal 500, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Martindale, Avvo, and Justia profiles — where the platform allows direct firm submission; where it doesn't, we prepare the exact corrected content for your firm to submit, and track it until it's live.
Not instantly, and we won't promise that. We establish and monitor the authoritative, current correction across your own site and your directory profiles — Scout tracks every engine until the correction propagates.
See where the seven directories are beating your own site
One diagnostic, six engines, a bar-compliance-ready read of exactly where you stand.
Confidential — reviewed by your bar-compliance team before anything goes public