TL;DR

Most law firm websites answer the wrong question. They describe the firm’s credentials and history when prospective clients are asking whether this is the right firm for their specific problem. The fix is not a redesign. It is a messaging decision that has to happen before any design work begins.

The law firm website problem is not design. Most firms have invested in professional photography, clean layouts, and responsive mobile experiences. The design is usually fine.

The problem is that the site is built for the firm, not the client. And that single decision undermines everything else on the page.

Two questions, two very different websites

Most law firm websites are built to answer one question: who are we and what do we do?

That is not the question a prospective client is asking. They are asking: is this the right firm for my problem?

Those two questions produce entirely different websites. A site built around the first question leads with the firm’s founding date, its number of attorneys, its practice area breadth, and its awards. A site built around the second question leads with the types of clients it works with, the specific problems it solves, and evidence that it has done this before for people in similar situations.

Almost every law firm website I have ever reviewed was built around the first question.

The we-versus-you test

Here is a fast diagnostic anyone can run on a law firm website. Read the homepage and count how many times the word “we” (or “our” or “the firm”) appears versus how many times the word “you” (or “your”) appears.

A page that skews heavily toward “we” is describing the firm. A page that uses “you” and “your” is speaking to the visitor’s situation.

Most law firm homepages score between 10:1 and 20:1 in favor of “we.” The ratio reveals who the site was actually designed for. It was designed for the partners who approved it, not for the prospective clients who land on it.

This happens because websites at law firms tend to be built by committee. The partners who review the copy are evaluating whether it accurately represents the firm. They are not in the headspace of a prospective client who has just searched for a law firm and has 30 seconds to decide whether to keep reading. The result is copy that is accurate but not compelling to the one audience that matters: people who do not already know the firm.

What a prospective client is actually trying to figure out

When a prospective client lands on a law firm’s website, they are usually trying to answer three questions in sequence.

First: does this firm work with clients like me? Not “what industries does the firm serve” in the broadest sense, but does this firm have experience with the specific situation I am facing? If the answer is not clear within the first 10 seconds, most visitors leave.

Second: who would I actually be working with? Prospective clients want to see the attorneys they would interact with, not just the managing partner or the most senior name in the practice group. Attorney bios are among the most-visited pages on any law firm website, and most of them open with bar admission year and law school rather than with who the attorney serves and what they do for them.

Third: do I trust this firm enough to make a call? Trust signals on a law firm website are not awards and recognitions, although those are fine to include. They are specific outcomes described in plain language, client types named and identifiable, and a genuine sense of the attorneys behind the firm.

Most law firm websites answer none of these three questions directly.

The redesign trap

When a law firm decides its website is not performing, the default response is a redesign. New photography. Updated colors. A modern layout. Sometimes a new tagline.

None of these things fix the messaging problem. A better-looking site that still does not answer “is this the right firm for my problem?” is simply a more expensive version of the same problem.

The right sequence is to fix the messaging first. Identify what the firm actually does for a specific type of client with a specific type of problem. Write the homepage around that. Test whether it answers the prospective client’s questions. Then build the visual identity around the message.

Most firms do this in the wrong order because the design conversation feels easier than the messaging conversation. Partners disagree about the message. They do not disagree about font choices and color palettes. So the design gets decided and the message gets diluted by committee, and the new site has the same problem as the old one, with better photography.

The one change that produces the most improvement

If a firm can only make one change to its website, the highest-leverage change is to rewrite the homepage hero section to answer the question: who do you help and with what?

Not in general terms. Specifically. “We help mid-size technology companies navigate regulatory inquiries before they become enforcement actions” is a homepage statement. “We provide exceptional legal services to clients across a range of practice areas” is not.

The specific version will make some prospective visitors feel like the firm is not for them. That is the right outcome. A firm that tries to appeal to every possible client type ends up compelling to none of them. The firms that write specifically for a defined type of client find that the clients they are writing for respond, and that the referrals they generate are better qualified as a result.

Common Questions