Case study · Legal

Cases, not leads: scaling a firm to 80-90 signed a month

The firm wanted volume from an account bleeding waste. What it got was a machine: roughly $100k a month in, 80 to 90 signed cases out, month after month, until the partners sold the practice.

Personal-injury law firm a multi-year engagement; the scale era ran more than a year Roughly $100k a month in search spend produced 80 to 90 signed cases a month, at about $1,100 to $1,250 per signed case, sustained for more than a year.

What the firm believed walking in

The partners ran a personal-injury practice in one of the most expensive corners of paid search, where a single click can cost more than a hundred dollars and everyone bidding is a law firm with money. Their instinct was the one every growing firm has: the account is running, the phone rings, so the way up is volume. Spend more, rank higher, answer more calls.

They were right about the goal and honest about the bar. A lead that does not sign pays for nothing. The firm did not want a fuller dashboard, and they said so in the plainest terms a client has ever given us: we need cases, not leads.

What made the partners hand over the keys was not a pitch. In their telling, it was the attention to detail, and an understanding of the personal-injury process deeper than they had seen from anyone they had worked with before.

What we saw

We took the account over and audited the whole path from click to retainer, and the waste was layered.

Some of the budget was never reaching people at all. Fake and junk clicks were draining spend before a real prospect ever saw the page; that fight became its own system, and we tell it in its own case study. Some of the spend was reaching people who could never become cases: clicks from places and searches that had never once produced a signed client. And the leak did not stop at the click. Pages collected form fills instead of starting cases. Calls were answered like reception instead of like the first step of signing. Retainers went out for signature and sat, and a retainer that sits is a case that quietly signs somewhere else.

None of that shows up on a dashboard that counts leads. All of it shows up in cost per signed case, which was the only number the firm actually lived on.

What we decided, and what we chose not to do

We did not scale the spend first, and we did not chase cheaper clicks or new channels. In this market the clicks are expensive for everyone; pretending otherwise is how budgets die. The decision was to make every stage between the click and the signature stop leaking, and only then let the volume climb. Expensive clicks are survivable. Expensive signed cases are not.

What we built

  • A fraud wall. The fake-click defense ran as standing infrastructure, so the budget bought people, not bots.
  • One scoreboard. Every keyword, ad, and page was judged on cost per signed case. Nothing else earned budget. And the dashboard behind it was built for the whole firm, not the marketing seat: the founders, the attorneys, the case managers, intake, and accounting all read the same process, progress, and results, so nobody had to take the ad platform’s word as the definitive truth.
  • Geofencing. Spend concentrated where signed cases actually came from, and stopped following clicks that never became clients.
  • Pages built to start a case. Continuous conversion work on the landing pages, tested against signed outcomes rather than form counts.
  • The phone as the first step of signing. Call scripts and trained answer agents, so the person picking up was converting, not taking messages.
  • The retainer signed on the call. Electronic signature while the caller was still on the phone, which closed the gap where signed cases used to go to die.

What changed

With the path sealed, the volume climbed and held. For more than a year the account ran at roughly $100k a month in search spend and produced 80 to 90 signed cases a month, motor-vehicle-accident work, at about $1,100 to $1,250 per signed case, well below what a signed case commonly costs a firm in this market.

The years since have taken the ad account with them, so these figures are the operator’s record of the era rather than a live export. We publish them as history, not as a promise, and the pattern they describe is the same one our current engagements measure live.

The lesson

The firm asked for cases, not leads, and that one sentence rebuilt everything downstream of it: what we bid on, where the ads showed, what the pages said, how the phone was answered, and how fast a retainer moved. A scoreboard that counts the real thing forces every stage to serve the real thing.

And the ending is the part we would frame. The practice grew successful enough that the partners eventually sold it and went on to their own ventures. A firm that signs cases on a machine, rather than on any one person’s heroics, is a firm someone can buy.

Want this level of clarity on your own numbers?

Start with a conversation. If it is a fit, the Second Opinion shows you the truth on your real numbers, with the written diagnosis about a week after the final working session.

Start with a conversation

Figures reflect a specific client engagement and are not a promise of similar results. Every business is different.