Your site is indexed. Your name comes up for branded searches. And the commercial queries that should produce intake calls, the ones with real CPC and real intent behind them, route to other firms. We work on the on-page layer and practice-area architecture that converts existing domain authority into rankings on the queries the firm actually bills against.
Atticus is a bar-compliant attorney SEO practice for U.S. attorneys and law firms, built on ABA Model Rule 7.1-aware and state-overlay-aware SEO. Florida Subchapter 4-7 as the strict-state baseline. California Rule 7.1 post-2018 aligned. Schema.org LegalService and Person nesting literate. Internet Brands directory syndicate fluent.
Generalist SEO ports to attorney work poorly because it ignores the regulatory layer the buyer's bar counsel reads on every page. The work is meant to survive a Florida Bar grievance committee review and the next algorithm update.
ABA Model Rule 7.1 governs every commercial communication a firm publishes. State overlays change which copy clears which jurisdiction. Florida Subchapter 4-7 is the strict-state baseline because national SEO has to clear the strictest jurisdiction. We cite the rule on every claim we ship, and we treat the bar-counsel review the firm will face as part of the build, not a checklist tacked on at QA.
Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw consolidated under Internet Brands. Citation inconsistency on one profile propagates across the syndicate. ISLN and state-bar-number consistency across every node is the entity-resolution prerequisite. Justia sits outside the syndicate with structural PageRank advantage from the free case law database; we manage both.
Google's parser reads the LegalService schema bundle to decide which queries the firm is relevant to. Individual attorneys nest as Person nodes inside LegalService. The practiceArea, serviceArea, and priceRange slots are the signals that link each attorney's bar admissions, publications, and alumni networks to the firm cleanly. We populate the bundle so the entity graph builds rather than fragments.
Every engagement starts with a written diagnostic against your Search Console data, your existing on-page layer, your directory citation profile, and the bar-rule exposure surface. Load-bearing pages identified, Rule 7.1 risk surface named, commercial gaps surfaced by query. Most diagnostics convert into a monthly retainer because the work the diagnostic surfaces is rarely one-and-done.
GBP architecture that clears the bona-fide-office requirement.
Google's one-listing-per-staffed-office policy for legal services intersects with Florida Rule 4-7.12. Multi-office firms get a GBP audit + category-specificity work (Personal injury attorney, Criminal justice attorney, Family law attorney) that the Local Pack actually surfaces.
ISLN + bar-number consistency across the consolidated syndicate.
Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw under Internet Brands. Justia outside the syndicate with PageRank advantage. Super Lawyers as a high-trust peer-nomination node. We manage all of it as one citation surface.
Bar associations and law school alumni networks, not affiliate CPA.
Off-page acquisition built on bar associations and law school alumni networks as high-trust link surfaces. Affiliate CPA networks that violate Model Rule 5.4(a) fee-splitting are categorically off the table. The outreach engine routes through the operator's cross-vertical hub.
Nested entity architecture, the firm wrapping its attorneys.
The LegalService type wraps the firm as the entity; individual attorneys nest as Person nodes inside it. practiceArea, serviceArea, and priceRange slots populated so each attorney's bar admissions and publications attach to the firm cleanly.
Flat-fee advertising structuring, not per-lead fee-splitting.
ABA Model Rule 7.2(b) permits reasonable costs of advertisements. Per-lead fees that constitute fee division violate Rule 5.4(a). Florida Rule 4-7.22 Qualifying Providers framework + California State Bar Certified Referral Service status (LegalMatch precedent, 2020) compliant lead architecture.
Case-result disclaimers rendered at the template level.
Florida Rule 4-7.13 requires objectively verifiable case results, informed client consent on file, and a 'past results do not guarantee a similar outcome' disclaimer placed in proximity. We render the disclaimer programmatically so every Case Results entry ships compliant.
Documented attorney-review chain for every AI-drafted surface.
Florida Bar January 2024 and California State Bar November 2023 AI guidelines require a documented attorney-review chain for any AI-drafted FAQ, chatbot output, or programmatic practice-area page. We build the workflow as part of the engagement.
Updated 2026-05-28
We read your Search Console data, your existing on-page layer, your directory citation profile across the Internet Brands syndicate and Justia, your Google Business Profile configuration, and your current schema bundle. The diagnostic comes back as a written memo: load-bearing pages identified, Rule 7.1 exposure surface named, commercial gaps surfaced by query, and a written scope for the foundation pass.
We rebuild the load-bearing pages first. Bar-compliant copy that clears Rule 7.1 and Florida Subchapter 4-7 by default. LegalService and Person schema nested correctly. Directory citations corrected across the syndicate with ISLN and bar-number consistency. Internal linking tightened around the new structure. The work that gets done in foundation is the work that compounds over the retainer cadence.
Monthly cadence on the rest of the site, plus content cadence for the practice-area queries the diagnostic surfaced. Quarterly review against your Search Console movement and intake-call attribution. AI-content workflow runs through the documented attorney-review chain so any LLM-drafted FAQ or programmatic practice-area page clears Florida Bar January 2024 and California State Bar November 2023 guidelines.
Your Search Console export, your existing on-page layer, your directory citation profile across the Internet Brands syndicate (Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, Nolo, FindLaw) plus Justia and Super Lawyers, your Google Business Profile configuration, the bar-rule exposure surface on case results and testimonials, and the current schema bundle. Output is a per-page memo: load-bearing pages, ABA Rule 7.1 exposure, commercial gaps by query, and a scope for the foundation pass.
Most diagnostics convert into a monthly retainer because the work the diagnostic surfaces is rarely one-and-done. Foundation pass on the load-bearing pages first, then content cadence on the practice-area queries the diagnostic surfaced, then quarterly review against your Search Console movement and intake attribution. Some engagements stay diagnostic-only and that is a clean exit.
Because the rule number is the rule. ABA Model Rule 7.1 governs case-result claims and testimonial structure. Florida Rule 4-7.13 requires objectively verifiable case results plus the proximity-placed disclaimer. Florida Rule 4-7.14 governs contingency fee disclosures. Generic compliance copy ('we follow bar advertising rules') without the rule number is what got the buyer burned by the prior agency. The citation tells the firm's bar counsel which rule applies where.
National attorney SEO has to clear the strictest jurisdiction. Florida Subchapter 4-7 is the strict-state baseline: case-result disclaimer mechanics under Rule 4-7.13, fee-disclosure copy under Rule 4-7.14, PI direct-mail 30-day blackout under Rule 4-7.18. California aligned to the ABA framework in November 2018 so it clears with the same compliance pass. A handful of strict states (Florida primarily) set the lowest common denominator for content that needs to work everywhere.
Florida Rule 4-7.20 exempts law-firm website content from the 20-day pre-filing requirement that applies to TV, radio, and direct mail. Website copy still has to comply with the substantive advertising rules under Rules 7.1 through 7.5, but SEO content iterates without the regulatory bottleneck. The exemption is the structural reason a monthly retainer cadence is workable for a regulated practice.
Yes, through a documented attorney-review chain. The California State Bar issued AI guidelines in November 2023 and the Florida Bar followed in January 2024. Both require a documented attorney-review workflow for AI-drafted client-facing content. We build the workflow as part of the engagement: AI-drafted surface is logged, attorney reviews against the engagement letter scope, edits captured, sign-off recorded. The output reads as written by an attorney because an attorney reviewed it before it shipped.
We read your Search Console, your existing on-page layer, your directory citation profile across the Internet Brands syndicate and Justia, and the bar-rule exposure surface on case results and testimonials. The diagnostic comes back inside two weeks with the load-bearing pages, the dead weight, and the commercial gaps in front of intake revenue.