Large plaintiff firm: campaigns tied to signed cases, at about 15x return on ad spend

Results as reported by our founder, from the firm’s own records; rounded. Anonymized. This is work our founder has led for a large plaintiff firm, outside Probative; the engagement is ongoing, and the firm’s own teams also contributed.

The starting problem

Scaling a mature but stalled program. A large, multistate plaintiff practice was spending about $4M a month on advertising. Its campaigns were optimized for leads instead of signed, qualified cases, so the platforms learned to find more leads, not more cases. Missed calls and inconsistent follow-up made it worse: some of the people the ads did reach never got a timely answer.

What we changed

1. Connected signed-case and case-quality data to campaigns. Campaigns were judged, and bidding was taught, on signed cases and their quality rather than on lead counts, the approach Google describes for bidding on conversion value (Google).

2. Implemented intake scorecards and missed-call recovery. Intake was scored on answer rate, speed and follow-up, and missed calls were caught and returned. Google also weighs responsiveness in Local Services rankings (Google).

3. Shifted budgets toward stronger case types and markets. With case quality visible by market, budget moved to the case types and markets that signed stronger cases.

The program ran on Google Search, Local Services Ads, Meta, YouTube, SEO and remarketing, with dedicated Spanish acquisition and intake. Remarketing ran only within each platform’s policies, and no Customer Match or look-alike audiences were built from client lists.

The results

• Cost per signed case: $8,000 → $5,000 (−38%).
• Signed cases: 500 → 800 a month at comparable spend (+60%).
• Return on ad spend: about 15x across the whole account. Return on ad spend: the expected attorney-fee value of signed cases divided by ad spend, across the whole account.
• Annual firm revenue: $100M → $240M (+140%). This is the firm’s total revenue. Many factors contributed to it, and it is not revenue we claim to have caused.
• Other wins: calls answered 65% → 92%; median first response 25 → 3 minutes; dedicated Spanish acquisition and intake; clearer market-level reporting.
• Engagement: 30 months, ongoing.

The figures are as reported by our founder from the firm’s own records, rounded. We don’t publish the firm’s name, location or dates.

How it was measured

Signed cases were counted from the firm’s own case records, not from platform reports, and compared on the same basis before and after. Spend came from the ad accounts the firm owned. Return on ad spend uses expected fee value because injury cases pay out long after they sign; each signed case is valued at what similar cases at the firm have historically paid. Percentages are computed from the figures above and rounded. Today the same measurement runs every week in our Monday report, under The Probative Standard and our method for reporting results.

What this means for your firm

At any size, automated bidding finds more of whatever you tell it counts. Tell it signed cases, with their value, and answer the phone when it works. The practice detail is on our personal injury page.