Industry playbook · published
Law Firm: Consultation Attribution
A practical consultation attribution playbook for law firm teams: page structure, evidence, measurement, QA, and implementation boundaries.
Reviewed 2026-07-20 · National guidance, Austin proofThe task and the failure mode
Built for: Law firms measuring consultation requests, screened matters, scheduled conversations, and retained clients without exposing confidential details.
Lead reporting can reward high form volume while intake sees conflicts, wrong jurisdictions, low-value cases, and unresponsive prospects. Confidential descriptions also create analytics risk.
Workflow
- 01Define inquiry, screened, case-fit, conflict-cleared, consulted, and retained stages.
- 02Collect only non-sensitive route and campaign context in browser analytics.
- 03Keep matter descriptions and identity inside the approved intake system.
- 04Reconcile marketing events with aggregated intake outcomes using restricted access.
- 05Review cost and conversion by practice-area route, not by confidential case narrative.
Evidence to retain
- A privacy-reviewed event schema with allowed and prohibited fields.
- A source token that survives the intake handoff without identifying a person.
- Aggregated stage counts reconciled to intake operations.
- A written rule for conflicts, referrals, and duplicate contacts.
Release checklist
- Block message text from analytics.
- Limit access to detailed intake records.
- Test call and form flows separately.
- Deduplicate repeat inquiries.
- Document unattributed consultations.
- Review reports for small-cell privacy risk.
Boundaries and caveats
Attribution should never weaken attorney-client confidentiality.
A retained matter may have multiple touchpoints that no single model captures.
Primary sources
- Google Analytics: About key eventssupport.google.com
- Google Analytics: Collect campaign data with custom URLssupport.google.com
- Google Search Console performance reportingsupport.google.com