TL;DR

Most law firms spend 1–5% of revenue on marketing with no system to measure what it returns. The problem is not the budget or the vendors. Leadership has never defined what a return looks like, so there is nothing to measure against and no basis for improving spend decisions.

Most law firms spend between one and five percent of revenue on marketing every year. In my experience working across regional firms, only a minority have systems in place to track what that investment actually returns. The rest are spending on faith.

That number stopped me when I first saw it. Not because it was surprising, but because it confirmed what I watched play out inside regional firms for fifteen years.

Managing partners would sign off on marketing budgets in the hundreds of thousands. Events. Sponsorships. Legal directory listings. A staff member dedicated to helping attorneys develop new business. Sometimes a full marketing and business development department. And when someone asked what all of it was producing, the honest answer, more often than not, was: we are not entirely sure.

That is not a marketing department failure. It is a leadership problem.

Why does law firm marketing spend keep growing without better results?

Because the spend decision and the measurement decision are made by different people at different times with no connection between them.

A managing partner approves a budget in Q4 based on what the firm spent last year, plus or minus a percentage. The marketing department executes against that budget throughout the year. At year end, no one sits down to ask whether the specific line items produced anything measurable.

This is not negligence. It is the absence of a system. Most firms have never defined what “working” looks like for their marketing investment. Without that definition, there is nothing to measure against, no baseline to compare to, and no mechanism for leadership to evaluate whether the spend was justified.

The budget renews. The cycle continues.

What does “no definition of success” actually look like inside a firm?

It looks like a marketing department that is busy but not accountable, since accountability requires a standard that does not exist.

The team produces events, manages the website, handles legal directory listings, writes attorney profiles, and supports each practice group with whatever they ask for. All of this is real work. None of it is connected to a leadership-defined outcome.

When a managing partner asks whether the marketing department is performing, the honest answer is: performing against what? If the firm never articulated what success looks like in measurable terms, the department cannot be held to it. And leadership cannot evaluate it.

The firms I have worked with that lack a measurement system share a common pattern: they suspect significant portions of the marketing budget are producing little return, but they cannot confirm it because they have no system for tracking outcomes. You cannot identify waste unless you are measuring. Firms that are not measuring are almost certainly wasting more than they know.

Why does better strategy alone not fix the problem?

The instinct, when marketing is not producing results, is to change the strategy. New vendors. A rebrand. A different conference circuit. Better content.

These changes sometimes produce short-term energy. They rarely produce durable ROI.

The reason is that strategy without measurement is guesswork. You can optimize a campaign’s creative, the timing, the targeting, and the channel. But if you have no system that connects spend to attorney activity to originations to revenue, you are optimizing in the dark.

I watched firms go through this cycle repeatedly. The managing partner would express frustration with marketing results. A consultant or new hire would recommend a strategic pivot. The pivot would create activity. Eighteen months later, the same frustration would surface again, since the underlying measurement gap had never been addressed.

The vendors changed. The gap remained.

What does law firm marketing ROI actually look like when it works?

It looks like a set of questions that leadership can answer at any point in the year.

Which practice groups have attorneys actively working with the marketing department on specific clients they are trying to reach? How many attorney-driven campaigns are currently underway? What is each one producing? What is the rate at which a marketing-supported touchpoint, a speaking engagement, a targeted article, a client event, converts to a new matter?

These are not complicated questions. They do not require sophisticated technology. They require that leadership decided, in advance, that these are the outcomes marketing investment is supposed to produce, and that someone is responsible for tracking them.

Firms that operate this way do not have bigger budgets than their peers. They have a clearer definition of what the budget is for. The marketing director is operating against a standard. The attorneys know what is expected of them. Leadership can evaluate the output because they defined what output they were looking for.

That clarity is not a marketing function. It is a leadership function.

How does firm leadership actually close the measurement gap?

By starting before the next budget cycle with three decisions.

First, define the outcomes. Not “improve brand awareness” or “increase visibility.” Specific, observable outcomes: how many attorneys are running active, marketing-supported campaigns to reach specific clients each quarter, how many new matters came through a marketing-assisted effort, how much potential new business each practice group is tracking. These have to be chosen deliberately, since different firms have different gaps.

Second, assign ownership. Someone on the leadership team, not the marketing director, is responsible for tracking whether those outcomes are being achieved. The marketing director executes. Leadership owns the standard.

Third, connect spend to outcomes retrospectively. At the end of each quarter, which line items in the marketing budget contributed to the defined outcomes? Which did not? That review does not have to be punitive. It has to be honest.

None of this requires new technology or a larger budget. It requires leadership to treat the marketing investment the way they treat every other significant firm expenditure: with a defined return in mind and a system for knowing whether they got it.

Common Questions