Silver Atlas finds most law firm marketing case studies stop at leads

Silver Atlas reviewed 50 public law firm marketing case studies from 11 providers and found only 3 disclosed cost per signed case. The findings suggest many marketing claims still rely on lead metrics instead of the case-level results law firms need to compare campaign performance.

Why it matters: - Law firms often have to judge marketing providers based on public case studies. - Silver Atlas found most of those case studies emphasize leads, not signed cases. - That makes it harder to compare campaigns on the metric that matters most: retained work. - The review shows a gap between marketing output and business outcome in public reporting.

What happened: - Silver Atlas reviewed 50 public law firm marketing case studies from 11 marketing providers. - Only 3 case studies, or 6%, disclosed cost per signed case. - The sample covered SEO, Google Ads, Local Services Ads, social media and mixed digital campaigns. - The review looked for enquiries, leads, signed cases, revenue, return on investment, cost per lead, cost per signed case and reporting period. - The public case studies were accessible on 7 August 2026 and met Silver Atlas’s eligibility criteria.

The details: - Thirty case studies, or 60%, quantified enquiries, leads or consultations. - Ten case studies, or 20%, quantified signed cases or clients. - Five case studies, or 10%, reported cost per lead. - Three case studies reported cost per signed case. - Half of the sample reported either a numeric signed-case outcome, revenue or return on investment. - The other half stopped at an earlier stage, such as traffic, rankings, engagement, calls or leads. - Sixteen entries reported revenue or return on investment. - Only 1 of those 16 also quantified signed cases or clients. - That means a reader usually could not calculate revenue per acquired case from the published information. - Only 1 of the 50 entries stated criteria for classifying a lead as qualified. - Thirty-five entries, or 70%, provided a numeric campaign duration or dated comparison period. - Josiah Roche, the digital marketing consultant who led the review, said: “Leads are useful for managing a campaign, but they are not retained work.” - Roche said a law firm needs the period, the spend, the signed-case count and the attribution method to compare two marketing claims. - Silver Atlas said the research does not claim the providers failed to track these metrics internally. - Silver Atlas said the study measures only what was disclosed in the sampled public case studies. - Silver Atlas did not independently audit the underlying advertising accounts, intake records or financial data. - The sample included no more than 5 entries from any publisher. - Testimonials without quantified results, general service pages, duplicate pages and agency-wide claims were excluded. - Silver Atlas case studies were not included. - The full report includes the methodology, limitations and a source appendix listing all 50 case studies and their coding.

Between the lines: - The findings point to a disclosure problem, not necessarily a performance problem. - Providers may be tracking stronger numbers internally while publishing only top-of-funnel results. - For buyers, that means polished case studies may still leave out the data needed to judge cost, quality and conversion. - The scarcity of qualified-lead definitions also makes cross-provider comparisons less reliable.

What's next: - Silver Atlas said the full report includes the methodology, limitations and source appendix. - Law firms evaluating providers may use the report as a checklist for better disclosure: period, spend, signed cases and attribution method. - The agency frames the research as part of its effort to push case-level attribution in legal marketing.

The bottom line: - Public law firm marketing case studies still lean heavily on lead metrics, while signed-case economics remain mostly hidden.