Every consultation traced to the question that won it
7
consultations
$340k
case value
$48k
avg case
DW
D. Whitmore · Mass Tort Claimant
Thu 14:00
via ChatGPT
$62k
RA
R. Alvarez · Founder, M&A Deal
Tue
via Copilot
$180k
KN
K. Nakamura · Claimant, Product Liability
Wed 09:00
via Perplexity
$45k
SB
S. Brandt · GC, Mid-Market Co
Fri 11:00
via Gemini
$53k
This is what a firm like yours sees, once you’re being tracked
Confidential — reviewed by your bar-compliance team before anything goes public
What the engines already show
0
directories dominate law-firm AI citations across every major engine¹
0
AI-generated errors in 2025 court filings — 10x the 2024 total²
0.0%
of those errors were submitted by licensed attorneys, not pro se litigants³
Already happening
Three conversations your firm doesn’t know it’s having
Even Am Law 100 firms rank below their own directory profiles for their own name.³
The Missed Deadline
A claimant asks ChatGPT if it's too late to file. It repeats a mass-tort settlement deadline that passed six weeks ago.
The Buried Deal Sheet
A general counsel's Copilot search never surfaces your actual deal experience — it's a static PDF. It cites your Legal 500 blurb instead.
The Relocated Attorney
An attorney who moved firms two years ago still appears as an active practice contact — a credibility and conflicts problem you didn’t create.
The method
Scout, Maker, and Anchor — one system, three jobs
Chambers, Legal 500, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Martindale, Avvo, and Justia already dominate what ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity say about your firm.¹ Inserviss finds out exactly where you’re losing the citation — and fixes it.
Scout · 20%Maker · 40%Anchor · 40%
Scout
Frequent citation and deadline-accuracy tracking across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity.
Catches a stale mass-tort deadline before a claimant relies on it.
Maker
Answer-first eligibility pages, structured deal-experience content, full schema, server-side rendering, and llms.txt — the on-domain fix.
Turns a generic representative-matters PDF into a citable page.
Anchor
Directory-profile ownership across all seven, Wikidata, press, and compliance-reviewed community presence — off-domain placement.
Rebuilds a firm's Avvo profile into a primary citable asset.
What Scout actually tracks
Who the engines actually cite — you, or the directory
“best mass tort firm for [litigation]”“is it too late to file for [claim type]”“top M&A firm for [deal type]”
Illustrative sample report — reflects the published 2026 directory-citation findings, not a specific firm.⁵
What Maker fixes, what Anchor builds
On-domain and off-domain, tracked the same way
Maker — Citable Page AuditSample data
Representative mattersGeneric PDFCitable page
Eligibility pagesStatic, undatedAnswer-first, current
Attorney biosOutdatedCurrent
Schema markupMissingLive
llms.txtMissingLive
Anchor — Directory & Off-Domain CoverageSample data
Chambers & Legal 500Thin listingComplete profile
Super Lawyers & Best LawyersOutdatedVerified
Avvo & JustiaIncompleteComplete
Wikidata & pressSparseEstablished
Seven directories dominate law-firm AI citations — Anchor treats each profile as a primary citable asset, not a listing to bring up to date.⁵
Platform coverage
Two buyer motions, two priority orders
One firm, two very different visibility programs — sharing the same Scout / Maker / Anchor system.
Personal Injury & Mass Tort
01Google AI & GeminiStill the dominant first-touch surface for "do I have a case."
02ChatGPTFast-growing surface for eligibility and deadline questions.
03PerplexityWhere research-oriented claimants check sources before committing.
M&A & Corporate
01Microsoft CopilotWhere GCs and deal teams already benchmark outside counsel.
02Anthropic / ClaudeIncreasingly the engine behind internal research tools.
03Google AI & ChatGPTThe broader reputation layer — press and thought leadership.
Directory visibility — Chambers, Legal 500, and the rest of the seven — is the connective tissue across both. It’s what every engine, on every platform, already defaults to citing for credential questions.
Built to the strictest state, not the most permissive — every claim carries a jurisdiction-aware review trail under ABA Formal Opinion 512.
01 Draft
Prepared by Maker & Anchor
02 Review
Against the strictest applicable state
03 Publish
With a per-state audit trail
04 Monitor
Scout tracks it everywhere
Illustrative result⁴
12%41%
A mid-size mass-tort firm’s own-site citation share, five engines, four months — no new advertising claims, just accurate, current, directory-anchored content.
Anonymized, aggregated illustrative example.
FAQ
Questions your bar-compliance team asks first
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 exactly where the seven directories are beating your own site
One diagnostic, five engines, a bar-compliance-ready read of exactly where you stand.
Inserviss Labs