Responsible attorney identity
Whether the advertising makes the responsible California attorney or law firm clear enough for a consumer and reviewer.
About the model
We help firm owners and marketing leaders see where a public-facing campaign, vendor relationship, AI workflow, or intake system may need more supervision, records, or disclosure review.
Assessment deltas
These are the public categories. The assessment does not disclose the internal weighting, thresholds, or escalation formulas used to produce a score.
Whether the advertising makes the responsible California attorney or law firm clear enough for a consumer and reviewer.
Whether spokespersons, dramatizations, joint advertising, locations, and State Bar-facing information are handled plainly.
Whether results, awards, specialization, volume, speed, settlement, and success claims appear supportable and non-misleading.
Whether AI-created copy, images, testimonials, avatars, videos, or chat responses could confuse consumers or imply unsupported outcomes.
Whether SEO, PPC, lead generation, creative, call center, and content vendors are subject to approval, audit, and takedown obligations.
Whether intake scripts and automated responses are reviewed before launch, monitored after launch, and archived when changed.
Whether shared landing pages, referral funnels, and co-branded campaigns clearly allocate responsibility and avoid obscuring accountability.
Whether the firm can prove review history, version control, monitoring cadence, takedown timing, and corrective action.
Whether the page gives a usable California location or State Bar-facing address signal instead of leaving consumers guessing.
Whether urgent settlement, quick cash, verdict, and recovery-number language is contextualized and not framed as a promise.
Whether actors, avatars, reenactments, testimonials, and generated media are labeled clearly enough for a consumer.
Whether the firm can quickly remove or correct vendor-created ads, landing pages, scripts, and campaigns when a problem is found.