AI results have replaced the front page of Google in the quest for online visibility. Damian Reed, head of brand and marketing at QualitySolicitors, explains how to get noticed.
Something is changing in the way people find a solicitor and most firms haven’t noticed yet.
Not long ago, a potential client looking for legal help would type their query into Google, scan a list of results, visit a few websites, and make a shortlist. That process is being quietly replaced. A growing number of people are now simply asking AI – ChatGPT, Google’s AI Overviews, or similar tools – and acting on whatever it tells them.
The question those clients are asking are direct: “Who should I use for my divorce in Cheltenham?” or “Which conveyancing solicitor is recommended in Reading?”
And if your firm isn’t in the answer, you’re not in the running.
What the research found
A study by QualitySolicitors set out to understand exactly how AI platforms recommend law firms. The team ran over 700 manual tests using 14 different search prompts, covering multiple practice areas and seven locations, across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Claude.
The headline finding was stark: a small cluster of firms dominates AI recommendations across all platforms and all locations. The same names appear again and again. Many well-established local firms, firms with excellent reputations and loyal client bases, barely feature at all.
This isn’t random. AI systems aren’t guessing. They’re drawing on specific, verifiable signals, and firms that score well on those signals get recommended. Firms that don’t, don’t.
What AI actually looks for
The research identified the key factors that determine whether a firm gets recommended. Strong Google review ratings – typically 4.7 or above – matter enormously, as does the sheer volume of reviews. Presence on platforms like ReviewSolicitors, listings in Legal 500 and Chambers UK, and clear use of professional legal terminology throughout a firm’s website all contribute to visibility.
Put simply: AI recommends firms it can verify. If the data isn’t there, neither is your firm.
This creates a structural problem for many local practices. A firm might have a genuinely outstanding reputation within its community, built over decades of client service, but if that reputation isn’t reflected in online review platforms and legal directories, AI has no way of knowing it exists.
The language problem nobody’s talking about
One of the most revealing findings from the study concerns how the wording of a search query changes which firms AI recommends. Two clients looking for the same help, but phrasing their question differently, may receive entirely different lists of solicitors.
A client who types “I’m buying a house in Reading, who should I use?” gets different results from one who asks, “Which conveyancing solicitor in Reading is recommended for house purchases?” The word “conveyancing” makes a significant difference. So do terms like “family law solicitor,” “litigation solicitor,” and “draft my will” – language that appears in professional directories and accreditation databases.
Firms whose websites describe their services in clear legal terminology – not just consumer-friendly language – are more likely to appear across both types of queries. The practical implication is that a firm’s website needs to do both: open with accessible, empathetic language for clients who aren’t sure what kind of help they need and then move into precise professional terminology that AI systems can match against specialist searches.
A page that describes helping clients “with their house move” may perform well for general queries. One that also references “residential conveyancing, including freehold and leasehold purchases, remortgages, and transfer of equity” will perform significantly better when a client uses more specific language.
Not all AI platforms behave the same way
The three platforms tested approach recommendations quite differently, and understanding those differences matters.
Google AI Overviews is the most consistent. It anchors its recommendations in live Google Maps data – star ratings, review counts – which means the same firms tend to appear round after round. Firms with a high rating and a substantial number of reviews have a compounding advantage: they appear in AI results, which drives more traffic and more reviews, which keeps them appearing. Firms with genuine quality but modest online review profiles are structurally disadvantaged, regardless of how good their service actually is.
ChatGPT is considerably less predictable. It draws more heavily on training data and established online presence, which means its recommendations can shift between sessions and occasionally cite rating figures that don’t match what’s on Google. It also tends to generate longer lists of firms, which can be useful for brand recognition but makes the rankings less reliable.
Claude takes a notably different approach. It typically recommends fewer firms but with more specific reasoning, cites its sources explicitly, and occasionally surfaces smaller boutique practices with high per-review satisfaction scores that the other platforms overlook. It also adds caveats – recommending, for instance, that users verify SRA registration before instructing any firm.
The national brand problem
The research highlights a particular challenge for independent local firms. National brands frequently appear in AI recommendations for locations where they have limited actual presence – because AI recognises brand scale, national review volumes, and directory listings across multiple offices. A large national firm with a regional office can outperform a well-regarded local practice that has served the same community for generations, simply because the national firm’s aggregated data signals are stronger.
This is a genuine competitive shift, and it’s happening now.
Where to start
The full picture is more complex than any single article can cover, but the research points to some clear priorities.
Building and maintaining a strong Google review profile is essential – not just in terms of rating, but in terms of volume. Firms should ensure they are visible on key legal review platforms, particularly ReviewSolicitors and solicitor.info. Websites should use clear legal terminology throughout service pages, alongside accessible plain-English descriptions. Accreditations and credentials – Law Society quality marks, STEP membership, Legal 500 and Chambers rankings – should be prominently featured and consistently reflected across all platforms where the firm appears.
None of this is especially complicated. But it does require deliberate attention. The firms dominating AI recommendations aren’t necessarily the best firms – they’re the firms that have made themselves legible to the data sources AI relies on.
A shift that’s accelerating
AI isn’t replacing traditional search, but it is changing what happens at the very beginning of the client journey, the moment when someone decides who makes the shortlist. Rather than visiting several websites and comparing them, more clients are simply asking AI for a handful of names and going from there.
Which means the question law firms need to be asking has changed. It’s no longer “Are we ranking well in search results?”
It’s “Are we being recommended at all?”
About the author
Damian Reed is head of brand and marketing at QualitySolicitors, responsible for brand growth, digital performance, and national marketing strategy. He supports member firms in generating high-quality enquiries, improving conversion rates, and building long-term sustainable growth.
