We recently conducted an analysis of AI search recommendations to better understand which divorce law firms consistently appear across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Perplexity when users search for divorce lawyers throughout New Jersey.
This research builds upon our previous analysis of AI visibility at the county level. While our earlier work focused on Monmouth and Middlesex Counties in New Jersey, we wanted to expand our analysis to determine whether statewide visibility follows a different set of patterns.
At the county level, our analysis showed that geographic relevance plays an important role. Factors such as county bar association membership, county-specific citations, and references across legal directories help establish local authority.
At the statewide level, however, we wanted to better understand whether broader forms of professional authority become more important.
As with our previous analysis, our goal was not to identify a single ranking formula. AI systems are dynamic and continue to evolve rapidly. Instead, we wanted to observe patterns that may help explain why certain firms appear more frequently than others when users search for divorce attorneys throughout New Jersey.
Although this analysis focused exclusively on divorce lawyers in New Jersey, we suspect many of these observations may extend to other practice areas and local legal markets beyond the state. Future research will help determine which findings are unique to divorce law and which are more broadly applicable to the legal profession as a whole.
Methodology
To conduct this analysis, we performed searches in private browsing mode using a Chrome browser. We tested prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Perplexity.
Examples of prompts included:
- Who are the best divorce lawyers in New Jersey?
- Which divorce attorneys have experience handling high-net-worth divorces?
- Who are the leading divorce attorneys in New Jersey?
- Who are the highest recommended divorce attorneys in New Jersey?
We then categorized the 23 law firms that were recommended across all three AI tools into three groups:
- Firms that consistently appeared across all three platforms
- Firms that appeared inconsistently across platforms
- Firms that appeared infrequently or rarely
We then reviewed each firm’s digital footprint, comparing websites, legal directories, attorney profiles, reviews, publications, certifications, and other publicly available information to identify recurring patterns.
As with our previous analysis, the observations below should be interpreted as correlations rather than definitive ranking factors.
Traditional SEO Still Appears Foundational
One conclusion remains consistent with conventional digital marketing wisdom: traditional SEO still appears foundational to AI visibility.
The firms that surfaced most consistently generally maintained strong digital footprints that included:
- Well-developed websites
- Active blog content
- Broad legal directory coverage
- Consistent business information
- Strong review profiles
We did not observe firms with weak traditional SEO practices dominating AI search results. At the same time, traditional SEO alone does not appear to fully explain visibility.
Several firms with exceptional review counts and strong local SEO profiles performed similarly to firms with fewer reviews and less extensive local SEO signals.
This suggests that traditional SEO may be a necessary foundation, but not always the factor that differentiates one firm from another at the statewide level.
In other words, AI systems may be asking a different question than traditional search engines.
Rather than simply asking, “Who has the strongest local presence?” AI systems may also be evaluating, “Who appears to be an authority in this field?”
Professional Authority Signals Appear More Important At The State Level
One of the most interesting observations from our analysis involved professional authority signals.
Several firms that appeared consistently across platforms demonstrated strong evidence of third-party recognition and professional expertise.
Examples included:
- Certified Matrimonial Attorney designations
- Attorney-authored publications
- Recognition in Chambers High Net Worth Guide
The Certified Matrimonial Attorney designation was particularly interesting.
Unlike many forms of self-promotion, this is an official designation granted by the New Jersey Supreme Court and represents an independent credential that AI systems may be able to recognize and reference.
We also noticed that many highly visible attorneys maintained extensive publication histories.
Importantly, much of this content was authored by individual attorneys rather than being published anonymously under a firm brand.
This distinction may matter because AI systems are increasingly evaluating expertise at the individual level.
Similarly, Chambers High Net Worth recognition repeatedly surfaced among firms associated with high-net-worth divorce expertise.
Again, this represents an example of third-party validation rather than self-declared expertise.
Taken together, these findings suggest that AI systems may place significant value on verifiable professional authority signals.
Individual Attorneys May Influence Firm Visibility
Perhaps the most surprising observation from our analysis was that individual attorneys sometimes surfaced independently of their firms.
In several cases, attorneys appeared in recommendations despite their firm lacking some of the local SEO characteristics we might typically expect.
This suggests AI systems may be evaluating attorney-level authority separately from firm-level authority.
Signals that appeared repeatedly included:
- Attorney-authored content
- Publications
- Professional certifications
- Third-party recognitions such as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
This may have important implications for law firms. Historically, many firms have focused their digital marketing efforts almost entirely on promoting the firm brand.
However, AI systems may increasingly reward firms that invest in building the authority of individual attorneys.
This may also create opportunities for attorneys earlier in their careers.
Rather than waiting until they launch their own firms, attorneys may be able to begin building authority through publishing, speaking engagements, and professional recognition while still practicing within larger organizations.
Over time, that authority may benefit both the attorney and the firm they represent.
Different AI Systems Appear To Prioritize Different Signals
One final observation is that ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Perplexity frequently surfaced different attorneys and relied on different source material.
Broadly speaking, we observed the following patterns:
- ChatGPT appeared to place greater emphasis on attorney authority signals such as publications, certifications, and awards and recognitions.
- Google AI Mode appeared to incorporate both traditional SEO signals and authority signals similar to those of ChatGPT.
- Perplexity appeared to rely heavily on legal directories and third-party sources such as Chambers, Justia, FindLaw, and Avvo.
It is important not to overstate these differences. We do not know exactly how these systems operate or what data they prioritize internally.
However, the findings suggest that optimizing exclusively for one platform may be shortsighted.
Law firms should instead focus on building a digital presence that is recognized across multiple systems.
County-Level vs. Statewide Visibility: Different Authority Signals May Matter
When comparing the authority signals discovered during our county-level analysis against our observations in this statewide analysis, it appears that county-level vs. statewide visibility depends on different types of signals.
At both levels, traditional SEO still appears foundational. Strong websites, legal directory coverage, reviews, and consistent business information remain important components of a firm’s digital presence.
However, the signals that appear to differentiate firms change depending on the scope of the search.
At the county level, geographic authority appears to play a much larger role. Signals such as membership in a local county bar association, participation in county-level events, and references across local organizations help reinforce a firm’s connection to a specific market.
At the statewide level, however, broader professional authority signals appear to become more important, such as a Certified Matrimonial Attorney designation, recognition in statewide directories such as Chambers and other statewide professional recognition.
This distinction may not be unique to New Jersey. Every state and legal market likely has its own ecosystem of geographic and professional authority signals.
For law firms, one important takeaway is to identify the organizations, directories, certifications, and professional communities that carry weight within their own markets and actively participate in them. Those signals may ultimately help AI systems better understand both where a firm practices and why it should be considered an authority.
Conclusion
Our statewide analysis suggests that the law firms that consistently surfaced in AI tools combined a strong digital foundation with professional authority signals that demonstrated expertise and credibility.
Traditional SEO still appears foundational, but it may not fully explain why some firms outperform others at the statewide level.
Increasingly, AI systems appear to reward a broader set of signals that help establish expertise and trust.
Professional certifications, attorney-authored publications, and third-party recognition may all contribute to that equation.
As AI-powered search continues to evolve, we will continue expanding this research to better understand how AI systems evaluate legal authority and how law firms can strengthen the signals that influence visibility.