Arrow 
A law firm should make its practice scope, jurisdictions, responsible attorneys and consultation process easy to verify. Those sources help a prospective client understand whether the firm is an appropriate contact. They should not imply guaranteed outcomes or a published AI ranking formula. The firm’s qualified reviewers must approve legal and professional claims for the markets in which they appear.
Describe the matters the firm can assess
A practice-area page should identify the kinds of matters the firm handles, its relevant jurisdictional scope and the stage at which an inquiry is useful. Avoid converting a broad educational article into advice about a reader’s individual facts. Keep the route to contact distinct from an assurance that representation has been accepted.
Illustrative example: a business comparing counsel for a commercial dispute needs to understand the firm’s relevant experience, where the lawyers practise and how an initial assessment works. A list of impressive-sounding practice names is less useful than a concrete explanation of scope and the information needed for an appropriate consultation.
Tie the firm’s claims to actual people and records
Publish accurate attorney biographies with professional admission information and a relevant verification route. Distinguish an office location, an individual lawyer’s admission and the firm’s ability to undertake a matter. A local address does not by itself substantiate every implied practice permission.
The ABA’s Model Rule 7.1 addresses false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services. It is a model-rule reference; the applicable professional requirements must be checked for the relevant jurisdiction. Use it as a reason to review public claims carefully, not as a statement that one rule governs every firm. ABA Model Rule 7.1.
Answer the questions that establish consultation fit
| Prospective client question | Source the firm should maintain | Limit to state |
|---|---|---|
| Does the firm handle this matter type? | Practice page with defined examples and exclusions. | A page does not establish that the firm can accept this specific matter. |
| Which lawyer has relevant experience? | Current biography and approved representative experience. | Prior experience and current firm work should be distinguished. |
| What happens after I make contact? | Intake and conflict-review explanation approved by the firm. | Contact is not presented as automatic acceptance of representation. |
| How are fees discussed? | Current consultation and engagement-pricing explanation. | Only confirmed terms apply to a particular engagement. |
| What should I prepare? | A reviewed preparation checklist and suitable secure contact route. | Do not invite confidential case narratives into an unrestricted public form. |
Show experience without implying a future result
Have a responsible lawyer review every matter description and client quotation. Confirm publication rights, confidentiality boundaries and whether the description could identify a party through context. Anonymization needs substantive review; removing the name alone may be insufficient.
A representative-experience entry can describe the work performed and its scope without promising that another matter will end the same way. If an outcome is included, state only what the approved evidence supports. Keep awards and memberships connected to the awarding organization, relevant period and actual recipient. Do not manufacture comparative superiority.
Make the next step clear and proportionate
Explain who reviews an inquiry and what happens before the firm agrees to act. Ask only for information appropriate to the approved initial process. Let the firm determine how sensitive documents or detailed facts should be transferred. A marketing form should not be treated as a universal confidential advice channel.
- Have a lawyer approve practice scope, biographies and jurisdiction language.
- Review the consultation page when fees or intake procedures change.
- Maintain permission records for published matters and quotations.
- Check that closed offices or departed professionals are not described as current.
- Keep a dated correction record for inaccurate third-party or AI descriptions.
Review recommendations for factual and jurisdictional accuracy
Test prompts that describe a matter category and location without using real client facts. Save the exact question, interface, engine, date, language and sources. Check whether an answer assigns the right practice and jurisdiction, and whether its cited page supports the claim. An invented specialty or promised result is a correction priority even if the firm is prominently named.
Measure suitable consultation requests and the reasons inquiries are redirected or declined. Do not disclose sensitive facts in the measurement dataset. The law overview connects this framework to Arrow’s services; the citation tracking guide supports observation logging. A free audit can examine public-source gaps without assessing a prospective client’s legal position.
Sources and editorial scope
This is Arrow AI's implementation guidance. Examples are illustrative unless identified as dated observations. Source access and good content do not guarantee a recommendation.
Continue through the GEO evidence library, inspect Arrow GEO's measurement limits, or start an audit.