Stan Consulting · Industry
Legal Google Ads are among the most expensive clicks on the internet. Every dollar spent on a keyword that does not produce a qualified intake is lost. Stan Consulting structures campaigns and landing pages around the case type your firm actually wants to take.
Get Your Second Opinion All ServicesQuick answer
Stan Consulting works with law firms across practice areas to fix paid advertising, intake systems, and landing page architecture. The $999 Conversion Second Opinion is the diagnostic-led entry. Higher-tier engagements scope on the intake call. Stan Consulting works with clients across the United States and internationally, including active engagements in New York, Texas, Los Angeles, Germany, and Israel. The office is in Roseville, California.
Stan Consulting serves owner-operated law firms and practices up to $5M in revenue. Established firms at $5M to $250M in revenue needing strategic marketing architecture are served by the sister property SF Marketing Agency.
20+
Years of experience
Legal + Local + National
Practice area coverage
Google Search + LSA
Two-layer paid structure
$999
Diagnostic before management
What we diagnose first
Before any campaign restructure begins, these four problems are assessed. They appear in almost every legal paid ads account that is not producing qualified cases.
Ad spend is producing contacts but not retainable cases. The campaign is targeting the wrong intent signal or the landing page is not pre-qualifying correctly. High spend with low case quality is a structural diagnosis, not a budget problem.
The same landing page receives all practice area traffic. A personal injury prospect and an estate planning prospect see the same page. Neither converts at the rate a specific page would. Practice area specificity is not optional in legal paid ads.
Form submissions include unqualified cases, wrong geography, and wrong practice area. The intake team is filtering manually what the marketing funnel should filter automatically. Every unqualified form fill costs your team time and your budget money.
LSA is running without Google Screened verification, without review volume strategy, or with budget too low to appear consistently in competitive geographies. An LSA profile that does not appear in the top three positions is not producing cases.
Why legal paid ads underperform
The same structural failures appear in legal paid ads accounts regardless of firm size or monthly budget. Each one is diagnosable before any spend scales further.
Broad match keywords in legal verticals match to searches that cost $50+ per click and have no case intent. Negative keyword management in legal requires weekly review, not quarterly. Every irrelevant match is budget that does not return.
Personal injury, criminal defense, and family law campaigns share a budget. The practice area with the highest CPC consumes the budget before lower-competition areas receive adequate spend. The result is uneven case volume across practice areas.
The prospect is in a high-stress situation making a high-stakes decision. Bar association membership, case results, and specific practice area experience must appear above the fold. A generic firm biography does not establish enough trust to generate a call.
Calls are tracked by the phone system. Conversions in Google Ads are tracked by form fills. Nobody has connected which keywords produce calls vs. form fills vs. unqualified contacts. Without that connection, optimisation is guesswork.
Competitor name bidding in legal has specific ethical considerations per state bar rules. Campaigns running competitor keywords without a compliance review create bar complaint risk. The campaign may be producing impressions while creating a liability.
The form asks for full case details before establishing trust. Prospects in active legal situations abandon long forms at higher rates than in other industries. Form friction is a measurable conversion variable, not a design preference.
What the audit covers
Every legal marketing engagement begins with a structured audit. This is the framework used to identify exactly where spend is being lost before any campaign change is made.
01
Each practice area reviewed as a separate campaign with independent budget, match type strategy, and negative keyword list. Shared campaigns with blended practice area traffic are restructured before spend scales.
02
Search terms reviewed for case intent vs. information intent. Research keywords excluded from purchase-intent campaigns. Match type strategy assessed for each practice area based on CPC and search volume data.
03
Credibility signals, practice area specificity, contact form friction, mobile layout, and page speed reviewed. Each element scored against what a prospect in an active legal situation needs to see within the first screen.
04
Call tracking verified and connected to Google Ads conversion data. Form submissions audited for qualification rate. The gap between clicks, form fills, and retainable cases is identified and documented.
05
LSA profile completeness, verification status, review volume, and budget adequacy assessed. Google Screened status confirmed. Review acquisition strategy evaluated against competitive volume in the practice geography.
06
Competitor keyword strategy reviewed against state bar advertising guidelines for us geographies. Any campaign running competitor terms without a compliance review is flagged before further spend.
Why agencies lose cases
Legal paid advertising requires practice area knowledge, high-CPC bidding discipline, and intake funnel awareness. Most agency models are built for neither.
The same campaign structure applied to every legal client regardless of practice area, geography, or intake capacity. Results are average because the approach is generic. A personal injury firm in a competitive metro and a family law firm in a mid-sized market are not the same account.
CTR and CPC reported monthly. Qualified case volume never tracked. The agency does not know which campaigns produce retainable cases because the data connection between ad clicks and intake outcomes was never set up.
Polished legal website design with no conversion architecture. Trust signals missing. Contact friction high. Click-to-call not prominent on mobile. The page performs well in a design review and poorly in a conversion audit.
Legal advertising requires understanding of high-CPC bidding strategy, state bar compliance, and intake funnel nuance. Junior account teams miss all three. The account runs on autopilot while budget accumulates without case results.
Scope clarity
Common questions
Continue reading
Self-diagnostic for managing partners
Most law firms we diagnose are not losing money in ad spend. They are losing money in the intake gap. Seven questions. Tick every one that is already true of the practice. The score tells you whether the problem is ads, intake, or both.
Your score
0 / 7
Untested. Check every item that is already true of the practice.
If the score is under five, the ad spend will underproduce regardless of bid strategy. The $999 Conversion Second Opinion diagnoses both layers.
Beyond the Campaign
Law firm marketing problems often compound silently. The campaign runs. The intake team filters unqualified contacts manually. The landing page looks professional and converts poorly. Each failure is a separate system problem, not a single campaign fix.
Stan Consulting diagnoses across the full intake system: ads, pages, qualification architecture, and attribution. Engagements range from a 72-hour diagnostic to full strategic consulting.
Not sure what is broken
Start with the $999 Conversion Second Opinion. Structural diagnosis in 72 hours.
Ready for a full build
The $5,000 Revenue Sprint. Diagnose, build, and fix in one defined engagement.
Need ongoing strategy
Monthly consulting from $1,500. Four engagement levels. Scoped to what applies.
$999 one-time - 72-hour delivery - No retainer - 24-hour fixed scope
Get the $999 Diagnostic