Most Law Firm Marketing Advice Is Wrong
Search “law firm marketing” and you get listicles. Ten tips. Seven strategies. Five things you should be doing on social media. The same recycled advice, written by agencies selling services.
None of it is backed by data on what firms actually spend. None of it shows which channels produce results in which markets. None of it tells you what Morgan and Morgan allocates in Boston or what Thomas J. Henry runs in Dallas or why Atlanta’s ad market looks completely different from New York’s.
This article does.
We track advertising spend for personal injury law firms across all 210 designated market areas. Every month, more than $150 million flows through broadcast television, radio, connected TV, and cable. We know who spends what, in which markets, on which channels.
What follows is law firm marketing grounded in data, not opinions.
The $3 Billion Category
Legal advertising in the United States is projected to exceed $3 billion annually in 2026. AdImpact tracks 3,720 legal advertisers across 150 markets. Legal services account for 6.11% of all local broadcast impressions nationally.
That makes legal advertising one of the most concentrated verticals in local media. The money is real. The competition is intense. And the channel mix is shifting faster than most firms realize.
CTV advertising spend in the legal category grew 241% between Q1 2023 and Q4 2025. Legal services CTV impression share hit 3.53% in Q4 2025, the highest quarter on record. Streaming now accounts for 44.8% of total TV viewing nationally.
Yet most law firms still allocate 55 to 65% of their budgets to broadcast television. The gap between where audiences watch and where firms advertise is the single largest inefficiency in law firm marketing today. Understanding how much lawyers actually spend on advertising helps put this in context.
Where the Money Actually Goes
Here are the 10 largest legal advertising markets by monthly spend.
| Rank | Market | Monthly Spend | Growth | CTV % | Top Firm | Their Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Los Angeles | $22.5M | +120% | 33% | Jacoby & Meyers | 19.6% |
| 2 | New York | $14.5M | +7% | 11% | Morgan and Morgan | 13.3% |
| 3 | Atlanta | $12.9M | +118% | 48% | Morgan and Morgan | 17.4% |
| 4 | Chicago | $7.3M | +12% | 20% | Malman Law | 13.7% |
| 5 | Houston | $7.2M | +20% | 18% | Jim Adler | 16.8% |
| 6 | Dallas | $6.9M | +26% | 10% | Thomas J. Henry | 34.7% |
| 7 | Tampa | $5.5M | +9% | 22% | Morgan and Morgan | 24.0% |
| 8 | San Francisco | $4.7M | +18% | 12% | Sweet James | 16.9% |
| 9 | Philadelphia | $4.6M | -4% | 12% | Morgan and Morgan | 21.4% |
| 10 | Boston | $3.2M | +14% | 9% | Morgan and Morgan | 30.4% |
The numbers reveal patterns that generic marketing advice cannot.
Los Angeles at $22.5 million monthly is double New York and triple Chicago. Its 120% growth is driven by Jacoby and Meyers ($4.4M), Sweet James ($2.8M), and Barnes Firm ($2.3M) in a CTV-forward market at 33% streaming.
Dallas at $6.9 million is dominated by one firm. Thomas J. Henry captures 34.7% of the entire market at $2.4 million monthly. That is the highest single-firm concentration in any major DMA we track.
Atlanta grew 118% to $12.9 million, and 48% of that goes to streaming. Seven of the top 10 Atlanta advertisers allocate more than 50% to CTV. No other market looks like this.
The Channel Mix: What Actually Works
Across 210 markets, the average channel allocation breaks down like this.
| Channel | Average Share | What It Delivers |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcast TV | 55-65% | Mass reach, brand awareness, 50+ demographics |
| Radio | 15-25% | Frequency, commuter audiences, drive time |
| CTV/Streaming | 15-25% | Household-level targeting, 90%+ completion |
| Cable | 8-15% | Niche audiences, lower CPMs |
Broadcast dominates because it built the industry. Morgan and Morgan, Thomas J. Henry, Jim Adler, Morris Bart, Farah and Farah all built their brands on local television over 20 to 30 years. Their buying patterns, agency relationships, and measurement systems are optimized for broadcast.
Radio holds surprising share. Houston allocates 34% to radio. New York runs 29%. These are commuter markets where drive-time listening remains a primary channel.
CTV is the fastest-growing channel and the most unevenly adopted. The gap between Atlanta (48%) and Washington DC (3%) is the sharpest strategic divide in law firm marketing. For a channel-by-channel comparison, see the best marketing channels for personal injury firms.
What Market Leaders Do Differently
The data shows that market dominance comes from channel concentration, not creative superiority.
Thomas J. Henry in Dallas. $2.4 million monthly, 78% broadcast, 13% radio, 8.5% CTV. He does not have the best ads. He has the highest frequency. He runs more broadcast spots than every other Dallas firm combined. His strategy is simple: own broadcast so completely that no competitor can match his share of voice.
Morgan and Morgan across 22 markets. They appear in the top five advertisers in 22 of 210 markets we track. Monthly spend ranges from $10,000 in Harrisonburg to $2.2 million in Atlanta. Their strategy is breadth. Rather than dominating one market, they maintain meaningful presence across 22 simultaneously.
Jacoby and Meyers in Los Angeles. $4.4 million monthly in the nation’s largest market, with an estimated 47% streaming allocation. They combine broadcast scale with CTV targeting in a market where streaming is table stakes.
Thompson Law in Atlanta and Dallas. The counter-strategy playbook. In Atlanta, they run 69% streaming at $1.4 million monthly. In Dallas, they run 38% streaming at $463,000 monthly. They cannot outspend Thomas J. Henry on broadcast. So they outspend him on CTV, the channel his $2.4 million budget barely touches.
The Streaming Gap Nobody Talks About
Streaming captures 44.8% of total TV viewing nationally. Legal advertisers allocate roughly 20% of their budgets to the channel that holds 45% of viewing.
That gap varies enormously by market.
High CTV adoption (30%+): Atlanta (48%), Los Angeles (33%), Las Vegas (33%).
Moderate adoption (20-29%): Seattle (27%), Spokane (25%), Tampa (22%), Charlotte (22%), Chicago (20%).
Low adoption (under 15%): New York (11%), San Francisco (12%), Philadelphia (12%), Dallas (10%), Boston (9%), Washington DC (3%).
The lowest-adoption markets are also the largest and most expensive. Broadcast inventory in New York and Dallas is crowded and costly. CTV inventory in those same markets is comparatively available and targetable to the household level.
For a CMO evaluating law firm marketing strategy, this data answers a simple question: where is the open field? In most major markets, the open field is CTV.
What Most Law Firm Marketing Gets Wrong
The standard advice tells firms to spend 8 to 12% of revenue on marketing. It recommends SEO, Google Ads, social media, and content marketing. It talks about brand awareness and lead generation in abstract terms.
Here is what the data says is actually wrong.
Matching the market leader’s channel mix. When the market leader runs 78% broadcast, agencies recommend broadcast. Competitors match the channel mix of the leader. But matching a $2.4 million broadcast budget with a $200,000 broadcast budget produces a fraction of the frequency. The math doesn’t work.
Treating CTV as experimental. Firms allocate five to 10% to streaming, run it for a quarter, see modest results, and conclude streaming doesn’t work. The firms seeing results on CTV, Dozier at 81%, Thompson at 69%, Montlick at 55%, treat it as a primary channel. These aren’t test budgets.
Ignoring market-level data. A “law firm marketing strategy” built on national averages is useless. The difference between Atlanta (48% CTV) and Washington DC (3% CTV) means the same budget produces completely different results depending on the market.
Optimizing for reach instead of frequency. Below three to six exposures per household per month, recall drops sharply. A $5,000 monthly CTV budget in a major DMA produces impressions but not the frequency required for brand recall. Budget for frequency, not reach.
Each mistake shares a root cause: making decisions from national benchmarks instead of market-level spend data.
How to Build a Law Firm Marketing Strategy With Data
The data points to a specific framework.
Start with your market. Every market has a different competitive structure, channel mix, and CTV adoption level. A law firm marketing strategy for Dallas (34.7% concentration, 10% CTV) looks nothing like a strategy for Chicago, where no firm holds more than 14% share. Know your market before allocating a dollar.
Identify the dominant channel and go where they are not. If the market leader owns broadcast, build CTV. If radio is crowded, shift to streaming. The goal is not to outspend the incumbent. The goal is to reach the audience the incumbent’s budget does not cover.
Allocate for frequency, not impressions. CTV requires three to six household exposures per month for recall. Radio requires 20+ weekly spots for frequency dominance. Broadcast requires consistent weekly flights. Budget to reach the frequency threshold on your chosen channel rather than spreading thin across all channels.
Measure what matters. CTV provides household-level attribution that broadcast cannot match. Track website visits, phone calls, and intake forms tied to advertising impressions. The data exists. Use it.
Think in quarters, not months. The firms that dominate our data, Thomas J. Henry, Morgan and Morgan, Jacoby and Meyers, didn’t build their positions in 30 days. They committed to channel strategies for years. A 90-day CTV test won’t tell you whether streaming works. A 12-month commitment will.
This framework works because it is built on competitive reality, not generic advice.
The Next 12 Months
Three trends will reshape law firm marketing over the next year.
CTV adoption will accelerate in major markets. New York at 11% and Dallas at 10% won’t stay there. As more firms see Atlanta’s results, budgets will shift. The firms that establish CTV presence in low-adoption markets now build frequency before the competition arrives.
Market concentration will increase. Large firms like Morgan and Morgan and Thomas J. Henry continue to expand. Their broadcast moats get deeper. Smaller firms that compete on the same channel will face increasing disadvantage. Channel diversification becomes a survival strategy.
Measurement will separate winners from losers. Firms running broadcast without attribution will struggle to justify budgets. CTV’s measurability advantage grows as CFOs demand real ROI data by channel. The marketing directors who can tie advertising spend to signed cases will keep their budgets. Those who can’t will lose them.
Law firm marketing isn’t a mystery. It’s a $3 billion category with data on every dollar, from personal injury to mass tort advertising. The firms winning today aren’t the ones with the best creative or the catchiest tagline. They are the ones who know where their market’s money goes and put theirs where their competitors’ doesn’t.
References
- AdImpact. "Legal Advertising Trends Report, Q1 2026." 2026.
- Hinge Marketing. "2025 High Growth Study." 2025.
- IAB. "2025 Digital Video Ad Spend and Strategy Report." 2025.
- Nielsen. "Streaming Shatters Multiple Records in December 2025 with 47.5% of TV Viewing." 2026.
- eMarketer. "US TV and Connected TV Ad Spending Forecasts, H2 2025." 2025.