Legal practice management software, measured across four AI engines

Thirty-nine answers, four engines, one legal practice management question set. Seven vendors appeared regularly and the spread between them is narrower than in most categories we have measured.

Clio took 31 of 39. Five other vendors were named in a third or more of all answers.

In our own agency category five firms shared 19 namings across 120 open questions. Here seven vendors share 130 namings across 39 answers. These aggregate counts do not establish how many names appeared in most answers or the likelihood of another vendor being included.

The most useful single finding in this sweep is not a ranking. ChatGPT named a product identity that the anonymised vendor retired in 2023 five times, and named the vendor's current brand zero times.

The observed answers used the retired identity; this sweep did not establish the cause.

The answers used a name retired three years earlier. In those five answers the current brand was absent. This is an observed identity mismatch, not evidence of a lost deal or a buyer conversation.

The sweep records the returned identity. It does not isolate the reason the engine used it. Public documentation, comparison articles and directory listings are places to check for conflicting identities, but this study did not test their causal effect.

The next step is to review how public sources connect the retired identity to the current brand. The observed mismatch identifies a question to investigate; it does not establish a remedy.

Potential corrections include product documentation, a migration or naming note, comparison pages using the current brand, and answers to the operational questions buyers ask. These are editorial recommendations. A later measurement would be needed to establish whether the returned identity changed.

We publish the method we use for measuring this at github.com/Broadcastwell/audit-method so a vendor can run it without hiring anyone, and the measurement framework on the visibility methodology page.

This sweep returned several vendor names across the 39 answers. Check both whether a vendor was named and whether the returned identity was current.

Being named three times out of 39 in a list this crowded is a different problem from being named zero times in a concentrated one. The material exists, buyers are asking, competitors are being described in detail, and the vendor is absent from the description rather than absent from the market. Publishing answers to the relevant buyer questions is a proposed next step. This sweep did not compare that work with brand spend or measure its effect.