While preparing for an upcoming conference on client experience, I found myself reflecting on a simple but powerful idea: clients rarely judge attorneys solely on the legal advice they provide. More often, their perception of a firm is shaped by the countless interactions that occur throughout an engagement. We often think client satisfaction is earned in the big moments, such as winning a case, closing a transaction, or delivering a successful outcome. In reality, clients experience law firms moment by moment. Exceptional legal work remains a key part of every successful attorney-client relationship. However, legal expertise alone is rarely the differentiator. Most clients assume their attorney is competent. What they remember is how easy it was to work with the firm, how informed they felt throughout the process, and whether they felt valued as a client. A delayed callback, a confusing invoice, a rushed intake conversation, or an unanswered email can leave a lasting impression. On the other hand, clear communication, proactive updates, and thoughtful touchpoints can build trust even during difficult legal matters. What is Client Experience? Client experience encompasses every interaction a client has with a law firm, from first contact through completion of the matter. While many of these interactions involve the relationship attorney, many others involve the firm as a whole. The experience begins with intake and onboarding and continues through scheduling, communication, billing, status updates, technology and ultimately the closing of the engagement. Clients do not separate these experiences into departments. To them, it is all one firm and one experience. One challenge attorneys often face is daily work becoming routine and too familiar. They send engagement letters, review invoices, request documents, and manage deadlines every day. For many clients, however, this may be their first interaction with an attorney or one of the most stressful situations they have ever faced. What feels routine to you may feel significant to them. Why Client Experience Matters More Than Ever The legal market has changed dramatically. Clients have more choices than ever before, including alternative legal service providers and AI-powered tools for routine legal needs. Legal expertise remains essential, but it is no longer enough to distinguish a firm. Increasingly, the differentiator is the experience clients have while working with you. According to the Client Experience Summit, 68% of law firm clients report that experience matters as much as or more than outcomes. That statistic should get every attorney’s attention. It suggests that even exceptional legal work may not be enough if the client feels uninformed, ignored or frustrated throughout the process. A strong client experience fosters loyalty, generates referrals and strengthens a firm’s reputation. As technology continues to advance, the human elements of legal service, trust, empathy, communication and relationship-building, become even more valuable. Everyday Tasks That Can Move the Needle Because clients experience your firm moment by moment, the seemingly small interactions often have the greatest impact. Attorneys have countless opportunities each day to strengthen trust or unintentionally erode it. While we have identified that the client experience is the responsibility of the firm as a whole, we are going to focus on how you as the attorney can have an impact on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes the most routine activities are the ones that can have an unexpected impact, including: Picking up the phone. Most of our work now can be done over email, but if something is getting muddy in the back-and-forth or if it has been a while since you have spoken to the client on the phone, give them a call! In a world where everyone emails, this can make a difference and give you a chance to connect with your client in a different way. Timely responses. While not every question can be resolved right away, simply acknowledging an email can make a difference. When a client reaches out, send a response back to let them know you got the email and inform them of when they can expect a lengthier response. The same goes if they call—you can send them an email to let them know you received the message and you will call back during a specific timeframe in the future. Setting expectations. This is one that can often be handled poorly. Communicate early and often during a project and set realistic expectations. If there is going to be a delay—let them know! Transparency is key in building long-lasting trust. Case updates. In the same vein of communicating often, clients can sometimes interpret silence as inactivity. Provide regular updates to your client on case status and activities. Even if there is not a lot to report, checking in can help ease anxieties. You should try to avoid making clients reach out to you proactively because they are wondering what is going on. When Emotions are High Legal matters are often accompanied by stress, uncertainty, and high emotions. Whether a client is navigating litigation, a business dispute, an employment issue or a significant transaction, they are often seeking more than legal guidance. They are seeking confidence, clarity and reassurance. In those moments, the way we communicate can be just as important as the advice we provide. Clients may not remember every detail of a legal strategy or every document exchanged. They will remember whether they felt heard, informed and supported. A simple update, a quick phone call or a thoughtful explanation can significantly reduce anxiety and strengthen trust. When emotions are high, attorneys who provide both legal expertise and a positive client experience create relationships that clients remember long after the matter concludes. Do You Measure Client Experience? My hope is that this article has convinced you of the importance of client experience and given you ideas of small changes you can make to impact change and build greater loyalty. But I challenge you to take things a step further. The best way to create change is to start by benchmarking where you are so you can determine what change is needed. I recommend you examine your processes from client intake to completion of an engagement. And, similarly, that you conduct a client feedback survey after the fact. Some questions to consider: Before Engagement How easy is it to contact us? How quickly do we respond? Is intake simple and welcoming? During Representation Are clients receiving regular updates? Are we communicating clearly? Are expectations documented? After Matter Completion Do we seek feedback? Do we thank clients? Do we maintain relationships after the engagement ends? The client experience is not built solely through landmark wins, successful transactions or favorable outcomes. It is built through hundreds of small interactions that occur every day inside a law firm. Every phone call answered, email returned, invoice explained and update provided contributes to a client’s overall perception of the firm. When attorneys and staff understand the impact of these seemingly routine moments, they begin to see client experience not as another initiative, but as an integral part of delivering exceptional legal service. The firms that recognize this reality will not only create happier clients, they will build stronger reputations, deeper loyalty and more sustainable growth. 

On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a number of privacy and AI bills. The AI bills place guardrails on the development, deployment, and use of AI across employment, health care, legal services, higher education, government and technology. The common theme is that AI can assist, but accountability remains with the developer, deployer or user of the AI or automated decision system. Below are key highlights of the signed AI bills and how they may affect compliance obligations. (A forthcoming alert will discuss the signed privacy bills.) AI in the Workplace Automated Decision Systems in Employment Beginning July 1, 2027, under SB 947, employers may not use an automated decision system (ADS) to violate labor, safety, employment or civil rights laws, to infer an employee’s protected status, or to predict or take adverse action against employees for exercising their legal rights. Employers also may not rely solely on an ADS for disciplinary or termination decisions. Where an employer relies primarily on an ADS for such decisions, a human must meaningfully review and verify the output, and the employer must give the affected employee written notice describing the data the ADS used. Workplace Surveillance Tools AB 1883 and AB 1331 limit an employer’s use of workplace surveillance tools. Under AB 1883, employers may not use an AI-enabled workplace surveillance tool to recognize or infer an individual’s emotional state, or to collect neural data (information generated by measuring activity of an employee’s central or peripheral nervous system, and not inferred from nonneural information). Employers using such tools as reasonably necessary to comply with legal obligations or binding contracts for national security, military, space or defense purposes are exempt. AB 1331 prohibits employers from using workplace surveillance tools to monitor employees in workplace bathrooms. Workplace surveillance is defined broadly to include video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking, geolocation, electromagnetic and photoelectronic tracking, photo-optical systems and other means. AI for Lawyers Under SB 574, the practice of law cannot be delegated to AI. Attorneys may not accept AI outputs at face value and must take reasonable steps to verify AI-assisted work product, including checking citations and correcting hallucinations, and may not enter confidential client information into public AI tools. Arbitrators likewise may not delegate decision making to AI, should independently verify AI outputs, and must disclose to the parties any reliance on AI-generated information outside the record. Health Care and AI Clinical Decision Making AB 1979 limits how AI may be used in clinical decisions, and SB 503 targets developers and deployers of AI systems that support clinical decisions. Under AB 1979, health facilities, clinics and physicians’ offices must ensure licensed providers exercise independent professional judgment whenever AI informs patient care. AI may not independently direct, guide or supervise clinical functions that the law requires a licensed professional to perform, but may still be used for administrative functions such as documentation, appointment reminders and responding to patient information requests. Under SB 503, deployers of AI clinical decision support systems must regularly monitor those systems and take reasonable steps to mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risks of biased impacts. Developers must describe the system’s intended uses and provide documentation, including a high-level summary of the training data types and how the system was evaluated for performance, limitations and mitigation of biased impacts. Changes to the California AI Transparency Act Compliance and Disclosure Requirements SB 1000 and AB 2713 amend the California AI Transparency Act by revising compliance obligations and updating disclosure requirements for AI-generated content. Previously, the act applied to covered providers of publicly accessible generative AI systems with over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users. SB 1000 deletes that threshold, excludes certain systems (such as products or services intended to facilitate accessibility for individuals with disabilities), replaces the term “AI detection tool” with “disclosure verification tool,” and eliminates the requirement that covered providers give users the option to include a manifest disclosure in AI-generated content. AB 2713 changes the AI-related obligations for large online platforms. In particular, it clarifies that large online platforms do not need to take any action or inspect system provenance data that is not compliant or interoperable with widely adopted industry standards. AI-Generated Digital Replicas Under SB 1111, publicity protections extend to computer-generated digital replicas readily identifiable as a person’s voice or visual likeness in which the person did not actually perform or appear, or they did perform or appear but their performance or appearance was materially altered. Organizations using AI-generated content depicting identifiable individuals should confirm consent and publicity-right requirements before commercial use. AI in Education and Government Higher Education Standards: AB 2392 requires California’s public higher education system to join an intersegmental working group tasked with developing standards for the adoption of generative AI systems and providing AI training programs for students, faculty and staff. Government Engagement: Under SB 1159, individuals may use AI systems, such as assistive technologies, to engage with government, but AI systems, robots and agents may not independently participate in governmental processes reserved for natural persons or legal entities. Next Steps Organizations should evaluate how AI is developed, deployed and used across their operations and whether updates to policies, practices and compliance programs are needed. In particular, organizations should consider: Reviewing AI-driven employment and workplace monitoring practices. Evaluating whether AI use by professionals, especially in law and health care, keeps human judgment central. Assessing whether existing AI governance identifies, mitigates and documents actual and potential risks. Reviewing policies on AI-generated content and transparency obligations.

Calculating answer engine optimization (AEO) and generative engine optimization (GEO) ROI for law firms is the new challenge for legal marketing teams. AI-generated answers now appear in 16.48% of U.S. Google searches, more than double where that figure sat earlier in 2025, according to Ahrefs. Firms that spent 2025 building AEO/GEO programs are now getting the question every marketing team eventually gets: what’s the return? Why Traditional ROI Math Breaks for AI Search Visibility Standard SEO reporting runs on clicks. AI visibility reporting doesn’t have that column yet. Google Search Console’s generative AI performance report shows impressions only, with no click data attached, and it combines AI Overviews and AI Mode into a single number you can’t separate. Rollout has also been uneven; not every property has access to the report yet. That gap changes the conversation before you set a single KPI. If the platform measuring your visibility can’t confirm someone clicked through, “ROI” needs a different definition than the one your partners are used to from paid search. What Google’s Free Tools Can (and Can’t) Tell You About AI Visibility GA4 and Google Search Console are the two tools most firms already have access to, and each covers half the picture. GA4 can show referral traffic from ChatGPT and Perplexity through its Acquisition filters, but it won’t show you citations or mentions, only the sessions that resulted from someone actually clicking a link. Google Search Console has no way to filter AI Overview impressions out from regular organic impressions; a spike in impressions on a given page is the only proxy available, and even that spike is a blend of AI Overviews and AI Mode with no way to split them apart. Between the two, GA4 acquisition filters are currently the best free way to see AI referral traffic actually landing on the site. Search Console tells you visibility is happening somewhere in the AI layer; it just can’t tell you where or how much of it converts. The Five Leading Indicators to Track Monthly Without clicks, the measurement set shifts to leading indicators: 1. Generative AI impressions over time, tracked in Search Console as a trend line, not a single snapshot. 2. Branded search volume, the most common conversion path when someone reads an AI answer, then searches the firm’s name directly. 3. Direct traffic, with the caveat that direct traffic has always been a mixed bag and AI-driven visits are one contributor among several. 4. Intake data, asking new clients where they heard the firm’s name. This remains the only human-verified attribution channel available right now. 5. A monthly prompt-tracking scoreboard, covering a fixed list of the questions your clients actually ask. Track these five together and you get a directional read on whether visibility is moving, even without a clicks column to anchor it. The Scale Reality: AI Referral Traffic in 2026 This is the number that should anchor every AI visibility conversation with partners, because it’s the most defensible data point available and it isn’t the one most vendors lead with. Amsive studied 54 sites and found organic search converts at 4.60% against 4.87% for large language model (LLM) referrals, a gap that is not statistically significant (p = 0.794). On roughly 90% of the sites in that study, LLM referral traffic made up less than 0.6% of total site traffic. Read plainly: AI referrals convert about as well as organic search does, but there’s barely any AI referral traffic to convert yet. That makes AEO/GEO in 2026 a positioning investment, not an acquisition channel. Firms that treat it as the latter are going to have an uncomfortable quarterly review. Dedicated AI Visibility Tracking Tools Compared Several vendors now build dedicated AI visibility tracking, sitting alongside or on top of what GA4 and Search Console give you for free. Semrush AI Toolkit tracks citations across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and AI Overviews, priced from $129.95 to $499.95 per month depending on tier. Ahrefs Brand Radar monitors five separate AI indexes against a database of more than 100 million prompts, starting at $129/month on its Lite plan. Profound processes more than 5 million citations daily across more than 4 million crawler visits and over 1 million prompts, spanning more than 20 languages; pricing is enterprise and quoted directly. Conductor offers a unified SEO and AI tracking dashboard under custom enterprise pricing, aimed at teams that want AI visibility sitting next to their existing organic reporting rather than in a separate tool. Pick based on budget and where you already live. A firm already running Semrush for SEO gains the least friction adding its AI Toolkit; a firm with enterprise budget and a dedicated GEO program gets more depth from Profound. Connecting AI Visibility to Signed Cases This is the hardest link in the chain, and also the one partners care about most. Intake scripts asking “how did you hear about us” remain the only human-verified way to trace an AI-influenced lead through to a signed case; no platform reports this automatically yet. The workaround several agencies have built is a unified dashboard pulling GA4, Search Console, CRM data, call tracking, and ad platforms into one view, so an AI-attributed lead can be followed manually from first touch through intake. Vendor case studies exist here, and they’re worth citing with the caveat attached. Consultwebs reports a client average of a 266% case increase and 6–8X ROI in the first year using its LawEval tracking layer; treat that as a vendor-reported figure rather than an independently verified benchmark. Separately, a Legora and Ari Kaplan legal AI ROI study found 42% of firms said AI helped them win new work and 94% said it helped them respond to clients faster; that study measures internal legal AI adoption, not AI search visibility, and shouldn’t be conflated with the GEO numbers above. How to Present AEO/GEO ROI for Law Firms to Partners Lead with the limitation before you lead with the metric. Tell partners upfront that clicks aren’t in the report yet, then walk through what is: impressions, branded search, intake attribution, and the prompt scoreboard. Frame the whole program as a positioning bet with a review date attached, not a channel with a guaranteed acquisition number. And bring one real result from your own firm’s year-over-year data rather than an industry projection; a single concrete data point from your own site carries more weight in that room than any vendor benchmark. FAQ Can I see how many clicks I’m getting from Google AI Overviews or AI Mode? No. Search Console’s generative AI report shows impressions only. How do I track ChatGPT and Perplexity referral traffic to my law firm site? GA4 acquisition filters currently show this traffic best among the free tools. What’s the best free tool for measuring AI visibility? GA4 combined with Search Console impressions, understanding both have real limits. What are the best paid tools to track AI citations for law firms? Semrush AI Toolkit, Ahrefs Brand Radar, Profound, and Conductor cover the space at different price points and depths. Does AI referral traffic convert better than organic? Statistically the same: 4.87% versus 4.60%, per Amsive’s study, with p = 0.794. How much of my website traffic will come from AI right now? Less than 0.6% on roughly 90% of the sites Amsive studied. How do I prove AEO/GEO ROI to partners? Frame it as a positioning investment, lead with the limitations of current reporting, and track the leading indicators rather than a projected acquisition number. What should I ask new clients at intake to track AI visibility? Where they heard the firm’s name; it’s still the only human-verified attribution channel. How often should I check which AI models are citing my firm? Monthly, run against a fixed list of the questions your clients actually ask. 

On July 26, 2026, a collision involving a Waymo vehicle, a blue sedan, and a pedestrian occurred in the Pico-Union neighborhood of Los Angeles, hospitalizing two people and reportedly injuring others. According to Waymo, its vehicle was traveling at 27 mph when the sedan, going substantially faster, struck a pedestrian outside a crosswalk, then veered head-on into opposing traffic, hitting the autonomous vehicle (AV). Waymo claims the AV did nothing wrong, but the cause of the incident is still under investigation. The AV’s presence steers what must be investigated but does not determine who caused the accident. In an AV collision, liability may depend heavily on what the vehicle’s data reveals about causation, and some of that evidence may be difficult to recover if it is not identified and preserved quickly. For Southern California plaintiff firms, that changes the intake process immediately. An AV collision may initially look like an ordinary automobile case, but within hours it can raise questions involving product liability, software, data preservation, insurance coverage, and whether the firm has the expertise and resources to handle it. The decisions made within the first 48 hours after intake can significantly shape the case, often before any liability theory should be chosen. The Legal Engine: Causation, Not Blame A manufacturer is not automatically liable for its AV involvement in an accident, nor should a lawyer take the company’s account of the accident wholesale at intake. The critical causation question may be more about whose conduct substantially contributed to the crash or increased the injuries than about who initiated the danger that caused the harm. California applies the substantial factor test for causation, which is specifically applicable to multiple potential causes and measures which actors’ conduct materially contributed to the harm. In the Pico-Union facts, the sedan appears to have initiated the sequence by speeding and striking the pedestrian, then swerving into opposing traffic and hitting the AV. However, the AV’s data may reveal not only that the AV detected the pedestrian and speeding sedan, but when it did and what it interpreted those objects to be. An AV’s operational design domain (ODD), perception system, and response to unexpected roadway conditions may therefore become relevant to causation. In a dense environment such as Pico-Union, counsel should determine what the vehicle detected, how surrounding objects were classified, and whether the system’s braking, steering, or path-planning response affected the severity of the collision. Those questions cannot be answered simply from the fact that an AV was involved; they require the underlying data. As such, an attorney must start by asking the right questions and gathering the right information. If the AV detected the sedan, its speed, and the pedestrian, how did it react, and did its response worsen or lessen the accident outcome? Did it respond more quickly than a human could have, which may have reduced the damages? Information concerning the AV’s sensors, remote communication, braking, steering, and acceleration may, in part or in whole, implicate or exonerate the AV and clarify who or what is responsible for the accident and to what degree. Therefore, attorneys should not commit to a theory before examining the data. The Evidence Clock Starts Immediately The most important evidence in an AV case may be sitting on a server and not for long if no one asks for it. Counsel should send broad preservation demands to all who may possess relevant evidence, such as the manufacturer, AV system developer, fleet operator, software designer, component suppliers, maintenance provider, and remote assistance provider. What the AV perceived and recorded may provide critical insight into causation, not limited to the moment of collision or the period immediately prior. Thus, data from sensors, such as cameras, lidar, and radar, can capture what the AV “saw.” The AV’s reaction and perception may be discovered through object detection and classification information, steering, braking, and acceleration data, and path planning and collision prediction data. System warnings, interventions, disengagements, remote assistance requests and communications can reveal what the AV detected, how it responded, and who controlled the response. Software and system faults, along with records of inspections, maintenance, repairs, and calibration, may show how the AV functioned, while ride-request, routing, and trip information may reveal whether the AV operated within conditions relevant to its ODD and performance. Counsel must also seek standard accident evidence immediately, such as surveillance video, dashcam footage, traffic-camera recordings, witness statements, scene photographs, roadway conditions, and information about other involved vehicles, which may be just as perishable from overwriting as AV sensor and server data. California Vehicle Code § 38750 requires AVs operating in autonomous mode to capture and preserve at least 30 seconds of certain sensor data surrounding crashes, in read-only format, for three years. However, that is a minimum. The statute does not cover remote operator logs and maintenance and calibration data; a firm still needs to send a preservation letter quickly, not assuming the data will simply be there later, given how it can disappear in ordinary business cycles. Other relevant evidence may come via Assembly Bill 1777’s regulatory Notices of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance (NAVN). The bill allows law enforcement to issue a NAVN after observing an AV Vehicle Code violation or traffic ordinance while engaged in autonomous mode. The notice details the type, date, time, and location of the vehicle and alleged violation. And while the statute creates no safety presumptions, the information may provide investigative leads. Competence, Coverage, and the Referral Decision AV cases are typically complex and time-sensitive, with multiple parties, causing the personal injury lawyer to acquire the expertise to understand and evaluate software, engineering, accident reconstruction, data preservation, administrative regulation, and data analysis, among other technical areas supporting ordinary negligence, strict products liability, negligent or defective design, regulatory violations, and failure to warn theories. Strict product liability requires proving a defect and causation, not the duty, breach, and causation of negligence, which determines how much and how early a firm needs to consider applicable tests, such as consumer-expectation or risk-benefit. But that does not mean the attorney must be an expert; the attorney must find the right experts and associations to competently conduct discovery and prepare for trial. California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent representation through the education and skill reasonably necessary for a particular matter or associating with those who have it. Creating those associations early in a case is imperative after an early assessment of what resources a case requires to prosecute it and whether the firm has them, such as forensic software and engineering expertise. That competence obligation extends to coverage, as well. Early mapping of the commercial auto, products liability, and technology/E&O policies of multiple entities, such as component suppliers, manufacturers, and software vendors, for coverage is crucial for early and ongoing settlement discussions. Accident cases are governed by tort principles, including those involving AVs. The difference is the evidence needed to prove those principles. An AV case may be shaped from the moment it reaches intake by whether counsel recognizes what the case might become, identifies the evidence that must be preserved, and determines early whether the firm has the resources and expertise to handle it. 

Law firms have worried about online reviews for a long time. I wrote about this years ago in Obtaining Online Reviews for Your Law Firm (https://lawfirmpracticemanagementadvice.com/2017/03/26/obtaining-online-reviews-for-your-law-firm/). The basic point remains true: online reviews are not going away, and law firms that obtain business from the internet cannot simply ignore them. But there is a major difference between recognizing the importance of reviews and believing every review platform deserves the same amount of attention. That brings me to Yelp. For many law firms, Yelp may be one of the most frustrating places to spend reputation-management time and money. Every firm handling a significant volume of cases will eventually have unhappy clients. What makes Yelp particularly difficult is that it discourages businesses from asking clients for reviews while also using recommendation software to determine which reviews count toward the displayed rating. For law firms, that combination can result in Yelp ratings that look substantially worse than the firm’s reputation on Google, the Better Business Bureau and elsewhere online. Law firms should keep that in mind when deciding where to spend their limited marketing resources. Law Firms Already Have a Difficult Online-Review Problem Legal services are unusual. A lawyer can provide excellent representation and still have an unhappy client. The judge may rule against the client. The opposing party may be unreasonable. Litigation may last longer than anybody expected. Attorney’s fees may become substantial. A client may have expectations that the law simply does not permit the lawyer to fulfill. The lawyer does not control all of those things, but the lawyer can still receive the one-star review. Previously in Should You Respond to Negative Reviews Online? , I addressed another part of this problem. Lawyers have confidentiality obligations that can severely limit how they respond when a former client posts an incomplete or inaccurate account of what happened. A restaurant, retailer or contractor may be able to publicly explain the other side of a dispute. A lawyer frequently cannot. This means law firms already face disadvantages in online reviews. Yelp’s model can magnify them. Yelp Makes It Hard to Build a Representative Review Profile Most businesses build reviews in a straightforward way. They provide good service and then ask satisfied customers for honest feedback. Law firms can use reputation-management software to make that process easier by sending clients a polite email or text with a convenient review link. Yelp discourages businesses from asking customers for Yelp reviews. That matters because unhappy clients generally do not need to be asked. The angry former client who wants to complain about a lawyer will find a place to do it. A satisfied client typically finishes the legal matter and gets on with life. Even if a satisfied client independently posts a Yelp review, the review may not affect the firm’s displayed rating. Yelp uses automated recommendation software to determine which reviews are recommended. This can produce frustrating results. A legitimate client can write a detailed review explaining that an attorney was professional, responsive, knowledgeable, compassionate or helpful, and the review can still end up in the “not recommended” section. Even lengthy reviews containing considerable detail and descriptive language can be excluded. For some law firms, it can appear that most of their favorable Yelp reviews are not recommended. Whether every excluded review should have counted is impossible for the firm to determine. The broader problem is that dissatisfied clients are naturally motivated to complain while the firm has limited ability to encourage satisfied clients to participate, and some of the favorable reviews that do appear may not affect the headline rating. It should therefore not be surprising when a law firm’s Yelp rating looks considerably worse than its ratings elsewhere. Businesses Have Complained About Yelp for Years The frustration is hardly limited to lawyers. Businesses have complained about Yelp’s review and advertising model for years, and some of those complaints have resulted in litigation. In Levitt v. Yelp! Inc. , business owners alleged that Yelp manipulated reviews to pressure businesses into purchasing advertising. Among the allegations was a claim that positive reviews disappeared after a business declined to advertise. Another plaintiff alleged that 77 reviews had been filtered, 75 of which were positive. Those were allegations, not findings of fact. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and did not find Yelp liable for extortion. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Levitt v. Yelp! Inc. is worth reading because it shows both the nature of the business owners’ complaints and the legal outcome. There is no basis for simply claiming that Yelp removes positive reviews because a business refuses to buy advertising. At the same time, law firms can legitimately question whether they want to spend advertising dollars promoting a profile they believe does not accurately reflect their overall client experience. Google and the BBB Are Not Perfect Either Law firms complain about Google reviews. They complain about the Better Business Bureau, too. There can be frustrating reviews, difficult complaint processes, questions about what should or should not remain online and situations where a law firm believes a platform has gotten something wrong. Neither Google nor the BBB is perfect. But compared with Yelp, they can look pretty good. With Google, law firms at least have a practical opportunity to build a broader body of legitimate client feedback. Potential clients are already using Google to search for lawyers, and reviews are connected directly to Google Business Profiles, Maps and local search results. Firms can ask clients for honest feedback consistent with Google’s policies and applicable professional rules, making it possible for satisfied clients as well as dissatisfied clients to participate. This also connects to local search. Previously in Are You in the Three-Pack in Google Maps? , I discussed the importance of local visibility. Reviews are not merely about reputation. They are part of the broader online ecosystem through which prospective clients discover and evaluate law firms. The BBB has its own frustrations, but it also provides another recognizable source through which consumers can evaluate a business. Law firms can maintain their profiles, participate in the complaint process and give prospective clients another source of information beyond a single review directory. Law firms may occasionally be unhappy with Google or the BBB. That comes with having a significant online presence. But at least a law firm has a fighting chance on those platforms. On Yelp, restrictions on asking for reviews and the recommendation filter make developing a representative rating much harder. Professional Profiles and Social Media Matter, Too A law firm’s reputation is much larger than reviews. Prospective clients can research individual lawyers through professional directories and recognition programs such as Super Lawyers. They can look at professional biographies, education, experience, publications, speaking engagements, bar activities, and other credentials. They can also examine what a firm publishes and how it interacts with the public through Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram. These sources provide context that a simple star rating cannot. Law firms should also continue developing their own websites. Detailed attorney biographies, useful legal articles, office pages, videos, podcasts, news coverage and other substantive content all give prospective clients additional information with which to evaluate the firm. I have written previously about whether online legal directories are useful and why firms should pay attention to search engine optimization. The same principle applies to reputation management: a law firm should not allow any one third-party website to control what prospective clients learn about it. ChatGPT Makes the Broader Internet Even More Important Artificial intelligence adds another dimension. Consumers increasingly have the ability to ask tools such as ChatGPT about businesses rather than manually reviewing one directory at a time. A prospective client can ask an AI system about a lawyer’s experience, professional credentials, locations, online reviews and other information. Search-enabled AI can gather information from multiple web sources and direct users toward those sources. That makes the entirety of a law firm’s digital footprint increasingly important. A firm should want search engines, AI systems and prospective clients to find its official website, attorney biographies, Google Business Profiles, BBB information, Super Lawyers and other professional profiles, social-media accounts, news coverage, legal articles, videos, podcasts, and speaking engagements. The objective should be to create legitimate, useful and authoritative information that deserves to rank when someone researches the firm. The stronger the firm’s overall digital footprint becomes, the less power any one directory has to define it. A Practical Yelp Action Plan Law firms should keep their Yelp listings accurate, monitor new reviews, look periodically at the “not recommended” reviews and respond professionally when ethical obligations permit. Yelp advertising should be judged like any other marketing expense: if it produces worthwhile clients at an acceptable cost, that matters; if it does not, firms should be willing to spend those dollars elsewhere. Meanwhile, put more reputation-management energy into Google, the BBB, the firm’s website, professional profiles, social media and other credible sources. Periodically search the firm’s name and look at the results as a prospective client would. The goal is to create enough credible information that no single website dominates the firm’s online identity. Make Yelp Less Important Law firms have limited marketing dollars and management time. The better long-term strategy is to build a broad digital reputation rather than devote disproportionate resources to one platform. As I wrote years ago in Obtaining Online Reviews for Your Law Firm , online reviews are not going away. What has changed is the number of places where prospective clients can research a lawyer and the technology they can use to do it. Google isn’t perfect. The BBB isn’t perfect. Law firms will complain about both from time to time. But compared with Yelp, they can look pretty good because law firms at least have a reasonable opportunity to participate and build a broader picture of their client experience. Google matters. The BBB matters. Professional profiles matter. Social media matters. A firm’s own website and substantive content matter. And as AI-powered search becomes more prevalent, the overall quality and authority of a law firm’s online footprint will matter even more. Yelp can remain one piece of that picture. It does not have to define it.