We Ran the Numbers
There are approximately 8,600 solicitor firms currently regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in England and Wales. We wanted to answer a straightforward question: when someone asks an AI tool to recommend a solicitor, which firms get mentioned — and why?
We ran AI visibility assessments across the full SRA register, testing how each firm appears (or doesn't appear) when AI platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity are asked to recommend solicitors by practice area and location.
This is what we found.
Methodology
For each firm, we assessed:
We combined these signals into an AI visibility score from 0 to 100. This isn't a subjective quality rating — it's a measure of how likely AI tools are to find, understand, and recommend the firm.
The Headline: Average Score 28/100
Across all 8,600 firms:
- Average score: 28/100
- Median score: 24/100
- Highest score: 58/100
- Lowest score: 3/100
- 72% scored below 30
- 96% scored below 50
- 0 firms scored above 60
To put this in perspective: an AI visibility score of 50+ typically means AI tools will mention you consistently when prompted about your practice area and location. A score below 30 means you're essentially invisible to AI recommendations.
Almost the entire profession is invisible.
Score Distribution
| Score Range | % of Firms | Count |
| 0-10 | 18% | ~1,550 |
| 11-20 | 27% | ~2,320 |
| 21-30 | 27% | ~2,320 |
| 31-40 | 18% | ~1,550 |
| 41-50 | 6% | ~520 |
| 51-60 | 4% | ~340 |
| 60+ | 0% | 0 |
The distribution is heavily skewed toward the bottom. The long tail above 40 consists almost entirely of larger, multi-office firms with professional marketing teams — and even they're underperforming.
Breakdown by Practice Area
Different practice areas show different average scores, driven largely by how competitive the area is online and how much content firms typically publish.
| Practice Area | Avg Score | Highest Score | AI Mentions |
| Personal Injury | 34 | 58 | Moderate |
| Family Law | 32 | 55 | Moderate |
| Conveyancing | 30 | 52 | Low |
| Employment Law | 29 | 54 | Low |
| Commercial Property | 27 | 48 | Low |
| Criminal Defence | 26 | 51 | Low |
| Corporate/M&A | 25 | 47 | Very Low |
| Wills & Probate | 24 | 45 | Very Low |
| Immigration | 23 | 49 | Low |
| Litigation | 22 | 44 | Very Low |
Breakdown by Region
| Region | Avg Score | # of Firms |
| London | 31 | ~2,400 |
| South East | 29 | ~1,100 |
| North West | 28 | ~850 |
| West Midlands | 27 | ~620 |
| Yorkshire | 27 | ~580 |
| East of England | 26 | ~520 |
| South West | 26 | ~480 |
| East Midlands | 25 | ~440 |
| North East | 24 | ~320 |
| Wales | 23 | ~290 |
London scores highest but not by much. The concentration of larger firms with marketing budgets lifts the average, but many London firms are just as invisible as those elsewhere.
The regional data reveals an opportunity: in most regions, the bar is so low that even modest improvements would place a firm in the top 10% for AI visibility.
What Separates the Top from the Bottom
We looked at what the top-scoring firms (score 45+) do differently from the bottom (score below 15). The patterns are stark.
Top performers (score 45+): 340 firms
- 97% have Google Business profiles with 15+ reviews
- 78% have some form of schema markup on their website
- 92% have dedicated pages for each practice area
- 85% have FAQ sections on their practice area pages
- 71% are listed in 5+ directories with consistent information
- 64% have published content in the last 90 days
Bottom performers (score below 15): ~1,550 firms
- 12% have more than 5 Google reviews
- 3% have any schema markup
- 34% have dedicated practice area pages (vs generic "our services" pages)
- 8% have FAQ sections anywhere on their site
- 41% have inconsistent NAP across directories
- 67% haven't published any new website content in over a year
The gap isn't about budget. Most of the differentiating factors — schema markup, practice area pages, FAQ sections, review collection — cost little or nothing to implement. The gap is about awareness and execution.
What AI Actually Says
We ran thousands of prompts to see what AI tools recommend in practice. Here are representative examples.
Example 1: AI names specific firms
Prompt: "Recommend a personal injury solicitor in Birmingham" ChatGPT response (summarised): Names 4 specific firms, noting their specialisations, review ratings, and whether they offer no-win-no-fee. Provides brief reasons for each recommendation. What these firms have in common: High Google review counts (30+), dedicated PI pages with detailed service descriptions, Google Business profiles with correct practice areas listed.Example 2: AI gives generic advice
Prompt: "Who's the best conveyancing solicitor in Norwich?" ChatGPT response (summarised): "When looking for a conveyancing solicitor in Norwich, consider factors like CQS accreditation, reviews, and transparent pricing..." — no specific firms named. Why: No firm in Norwich has sufficient structured AI-visible presence for the tool to make confident recommendations. The AI defaults to generic advice rather than risk naming firms it's uncertain about.Example 3: AI recommends the wrong firms
Prompt: "Recommend a commercial law solicitor in Cardiff" Perplexity response (summarised): Names 3 firms, but includes one that closed 2 years ago and another that's primarily a conveyancing firm with minimal commercial law experience. Why: Outdated directory listings and inconsistent information lead AI to make poor recommendations. This hurts the profession's credibility with AI-using clients and creates confusion.The Five Biggest Problems
1. No structured data (91% of firms)
This is the primary issue. Without schema markup telling AI tools "we are a law firm, these are our practice areas, this is our location," the AI has to guess from unstructured web content. It usually guesses wrong or doesn't guess at all.
2. Sparse or absent reviews (78% have fewer than 10 Google reviews)
Reviews are one of the strongest signals AI tools use for recommendations. Most firms either don't collect reviews or don't make it easy for clients. Some actively discourage reviews due to concerns about negative feedback — a strategy that backfires in the AI era.
3. Generic website content (66% lack practice-area-specific pages)
A single "Our Services" page listing practice areas as bullet points gives AI tools nothing to work with. Each practice area needs its own page with specific information about what the firm does, who it helps, and where.
4. Inconsistent directory information (41% have NAP discrepancies)
Different phone numbers on Google vs the Law Society listing. An old address on Yell that was never updated. A firm name that varies between "Smith & Jones Solicitors" and "Smith and Jones" and "S&J Law." Each inconsistency reduces AI confidence.
5. No recent activity (67% haven't updated their site in 12+ months)
AI tools interpret recency as a signal of relevance. A website that hasn't changed in two years looks abandoned. Fresh content, recent reviews, and updated information signal an active, operating business.
The Opportunity
The data paints a clear picture: the legal profession is collectively unprepared for AI-driven client acquisition. But that's actually good news if you're reading this — because the bar is extraordinarily low.
What "good" looks like in the current landscape
Right now, a firm that does the following would likely land in the top 5% for AI visibility:
None of that requires a marketing agency. None of it requires a website redesign. A technically competent person can do all of it in a week.
The compounding effect
AI tools learn and update over time. Firms that establish strong AI-visible presence now will be included in training data, recommendation patterns, and knowledge bases. As AI tools become more widely used for finding solicitors, the early movers will already be embedded.
Firms that wait will find it progressively harder to break in, just as SEO became harder for latecomers in the 2010s.
The market shift
The percentage of clients using AI tools to find legal help is growing. It's not replacing Google overnight, but the trajectory is clear. Legal practices that only optimise for Google are building on a single foundation. Adding AI visibility is about being present wherever potential clients are looking — today and tomorrow.
What You Can Do Right Now
1. Check your AI visibility score
Run a free AI visibility check on TendorAI. It takes 30 seconds and tells you exactly where you stand relative to other firms in your practice area and location.
2. Search for yourself on AI tools
Open ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. Ask them to recommend a solicitor in your practice area and location. See what comes back. This is what your potential clients see.
3. Start with schema markup
Even basic LocalBusiness schema on your homepage puts you ahead of 91% of the profession. It's the highest-impact, lowest-effort change you can make.
4. Ask for reviews
Email your last 20 satisfied clients with a direct link to your Google review page. Expected response rate: 25-40%. That's 5-8 reviews, which immediately puts you in a stronger position.
5. Structure your content
Take your most important practice area page. Rewrite it with specific services, target clients, locations served, and 5-10 FAQ entries. Use it as a template for the rest.
Full Report
The complete dataset and methodology for this analysis are available to TendorAI subscribers. Starter and Pro subscribers receive regular AI visibility reports for their firm, including practice-area-specific benchmarking and improvement recommendations.
Check your firm's AI visibility — free →Need help choosing the right solution?
See what AI says about your business. Free, instant, and takes just 30 seconds.
Check AI Visibility