Which law firm marketing agencies offer customized services? Almost all claim it; test it instead. A proposal written for your firm cites your current rankings, names your competitors and excludes something — a template does none of the three.
The tell is not what a proposal includes. It is whether it leaves anything out.
- Published pricing — $2,500, $3,500 and $4,500 a month, on the site.
- Month to month. No contract is holding you anywhere.
- A former attorney of 17 years who filed 5,000+ cases works your account.
- You see your rankings move for 14 days before you are billed a dollar.
- Law firms only — no other industries, ever.
| Attorney Pro Marketing | Scorpion | FindLaw | Typical legal agency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing published on the website | Yes — $2,500 / $3,500 / $4,500 per month | Not published | Not published | Rarely published |
| Contract term | Month to month, 30 days’ notice | Not published | Not published | Commonly 12 months |
| Who works on your account | A former attorney of 17 years, in every account | Assigned account team | Assigned account team | Account manager, often across industries |
| Your website is built on | Standard, portable code | Proprietary platform | FirmSite platform | Varies — ask before signing |
| See results before you are billed | Yes — 14 days, then you decide | No | No | No |
| Ad spend billed by Google directly to you | Yes, no markup | Ask | Ask | Often passes through the agency |
“Not published” means the figure does not appear on that company’s own website as of October 2026 — check for yourself before you sign anything, with them or with us.
The Universal Claim
No agency describes its services as standardised. Customisation is claimed in every proposal, which makes the claim worthless as a differentiator and useful only as something to test.
There is also a real tension nobody mentions: standardisation is frequently good. A proven process applied consistently beats bespoke improvisation, and an agency that rebuilds its approach for every client is usually an agency without a method. What you actually want is a standard process with the inputs genuinely drawn from your firm.
Three Tests That Separate Real From Claimed
- 1. Does it cite your current rankings? A proposal written for you states where you rank today, for which terms, in which parts of your market. That requires work before payment, which is why most proposals do not contain it.
- 2. Does it name your actual competitors? Not “firms in your market” — names, and what those firms are doing that you are not.
- 3. Does it exclude anything? The strongest signal. A template recommends every service, because removing one reduces the price. A considered proposal says: not this, not yet, and here is why.
The third test is the one worth weighting. An agency that tells you to skip a service it sells is demonstrating something no amount of customisation language can.
Where Customisation Genuinely Matters
Keyword and case-type selection. Which searches you bid on is where practice area, geography and case economics actually bite. A template keyword list is the most expensive form of standardisation, because the waste is in media rather than fees.
Budget allocation across channels. A bankruptcy firm and a personal injury firm with the same budget should not have it distributed the same way. Urgency and case value change the right answer.
Content topics. The questions your intake actually fields are specific to your practice and market, and they are the content that converts.
Timeline expectations. Family law deliberates for weeks; criminal defence decides tonight. A standard ninety-day review applied to both will mislead you about one of them.
Where Standardisation Is Perfectly Fine
Technical SEO fundamentals, site speed and schema markup. Google Business Profile completeness. Conversion tracking setup. Reporting structure. Review request mechanics, within your state's rules.
These should be standardised, and an agency that treats them as bespoke is charging you to reinvent settled practice.
Our own approach is deliberately standard in process and specific in inputs: the same day 0 baseline, three-day build and day 14 report for every firm, with the keyword set, channel weighting and content drawn entirely from your practice area, market and case economics. Published pricing at $2,500, $3,500 and $4,500 a month means the package is defined — what varies is what goes into it.
See it before you pay for it.
We snapshot your rankings on day 0, build and launch your site within three days, and show you the movement on day 14. If it has not moved enough to be worth continuing, you owe nothing for that period and you keep the Google Business Profile work.
Related Questions
Three tests: does it cite your actual current rankings for specific terms in specific parts of your market; does it name your actual competitors rather than referring to firms in your market generally; and does it explicitly exclude something. The third is the strongest signal, because a template recommends every service since removing one reduces the price.
Keyword and case-type selection, where practice area, geography and case economics actually bite; budget allocation across channels, since urgency and case value differ sharply between practices; content topics, which should come from the questions your intake actually fields; and timeline expectations, because family law and criminal defence decide on completely different cycles.
No — often the opposite. Technical SEO fundamentals, site speed, schema, profile completeness, conversion tracking and reporting structure should all be standardised, and an agency treating them as bespoke is charging you to reinvent settled practice. What you want is a standard process with inputs genuinely drawn from your firm.
That it recommends against something it sells. A proposal which rules a service out, with a reason, is demonstrating judgment that no amount of customisation language replaces — and it is rare, because excluding a line item reduces the quoted price.