The public results ledger
We publish the results either way.
A firm that only shows a curated case-study reel is choosing what you see. We keep a public, dated ledger of what actually happened, including the runs that underperformed. Publishing the misses is the costly, hard-to-fake signal, and it's the most literal expression of what this brand is.
Entries · newest first
Who AI cites for "best lawyer" queries
The desk's first public study, run on our own market rather than a client's. We sampled the AI citations a "best lawyer" search returns and classified every source.
Earned citation: Search Engine Roundtable. Real distribution outcome, not a testimonial.2 Read the study →
Our own starting line, frozen in public
Before we claim a thing, we publish our own before-picture: per-platform citation presence, mention rate and link rate as two numbers, human-origin demand separated from raw counts. As a cold-start newsroom our own numbers are thin, and we show them thin rather than dress them up.
A baseline is a "before," not a result. No work has run against this line, so no lift is claimed.3
Including the ones that miss
When engagements run, each enters here with its holdout-measured read, whether it beat the control or not. This slot is the template, not a result. We won't quietly delete a run that underperformed, because deleting it is exactly the manufactured-authority move we sell against.
The honest read is the close.
If a ledger that publishes its misses reads as more trustworthy than a wall of five-star quotes, that's the whole idea.
Sources & method
- Holdout-verified reads: measure lift over a pre-registered control, the one number attribution can't fake. Aggregated public research.
- Legal citation study, n=236, 67% to firms' own sites; earned pickup Search Engine Roundtable, Jul 6, 2026. Full study.
- Publish-the-results-either-way ledger, baselines and misses included. Aggregated public research.