Legal

Privilege is treated as a reason to do nothing online. Practice-area pages load only when someone clicks a tab. Case studies sit in PDFs. Team directories are assembled in the browser.

Google can often still rank the site, because Google waits for the page to finish loading. The tools behind ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read the page as it first arrives and do not click, so the claims a buyer would ask an AI assistant about are simply not there.

The usual internal explanation is confidentiality. The usual actual block is how the site is built. Discretion is a real duty. It is not a duty to hide the existence of a disputes practice behind a script.

We put each practice area on its own page, with the words already on it so no tool has to click to find them. Case studies come out of PDFs and onto pages that name the shape of the work without naming the client.

The answers buyers ask, who acts in this sector, what it costs to start, what happens after they get in touch, are written so a partner can stand behind them. Off-site, we look at the directories and lists those buyers already use, because that is where AI assistants currently go to make a shortlist.

Governance sits next to this when the firm also wants tools inside the practice. The marketing site and the internal tool are different data paths, and we treat them as such.

The work is not a promise that an AI assistant will name the firm next month. It is not a campaign that asks partners to publish client matters. It is not a chatbot giving legal advice on the website.

Law firms that want rankings for terms their clients never type, or that will not change the site itself, are not a fit. The work is structural and editorial, and it only pays if the partnership will let the public pages say what the firm actually does.

Investigation work, where it is part of the practice, is described in the same plain language as the rest: what it is, who it is for, and how to start, without the case names.