What AI Recommends & Cites for Personal Injury Lawyer Search Queries

A 100-city study of who AI recommends and what it cites, across Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, ChatGPT, and Perplexity.

Optimize My Firm | Data collected October 2026.

The short version for firms:

  • SEO, unique content on your own site, and reviews do most of the work.
  • The next layer: directory profiles with reviews. Which ones matter depends on the engine.
  • You can buy visibility in SEO, but you have to earn authority to be recommended by AI because LLMs synthesize independent third-party reviews.
  • People rarely hire from ChatGPT but they could one day. Google’s Local Pack, AI Overviews and AI Mode are far more important.

Note: Please pay special attention below to “recommended” vs “cited”. Being cited rarely accomplishes anything of value. Our goal is to drive cases.

Key Findings:

  1. Who gets recommended comes down to Google reviews and organic rankings. On a local “personal injury lawyer [city]” search, Google review count and Google organic ranking are the strongest predictors of a firm being named on every engine. ChatGPT leans most on Google review count and star rating. Yelp adds at most a small boost (Yelp will likely be more important soon thanks to their deal with OpenAI).
  2. Law firm websites are the most-cited source on every AI engine. They account for 46% (ChatGPT) to 78% (Gemini, Google AI Overviews) of all citations. A firm’s own site shows up in 68% to 97% of answers, depending on the engine.
  3. Directories matter, but each engine has its favorites. Super Lawyers is the most-cited directory overall and appears in 54% of Gemini answers and 46% of AI Mode answers. ChatGPT leans on Avvo (36%) and Expertise.com (32%). Perplexity leans on Super Lawyers (41%), FindLaw (35%), and LawInfo (35%). Justia is a Gemini favorite (43%).
  4. On “find a lawyer” searches, platforms carry more weight. ChatGPT leans on Avvo (87% of finder answers), Expertise.com, Google Business Profile, and Yelp (27%). Gemini leans on Justia and Super Lawyers. Perplexity leans on Super Lawyers, Avvo, and FindLaw.
  5. Reviews track closely with AI visibility. Only 24% of firms with fewer than 10 Google reviews were named or cited by any AI engine across all searches, versus 62% of firms with 100–249 reviews and 92% of firms with 1,000+.
  6. Organic Google rankings are the strongest single signal across all searches. After controlling for reviews, rating, and Maps rank, ranking organically made a firm about 11 times more likely to be named somewhere in the study.
  7. Google’s AI Overviews mirror organic results; ChatGPT does not. 56% of the sites cited in AI Overviews also rank in the organic top 10 for the same search, compared with 26% for AI Mode and Gemini, 19% for Perplexity, and 12% for ChatGPT.
  8. AI Overviews don’t appear on every search. Google showed an AI Overview on 92–99% of question-style searches, 49–80% of “find me a lawyer” searches, and only 33% of “personal injury lawyer [city]” searches.

Finding 1: Who gets recommended on a local "personal injury lawyer" search

Here are the most important directories to claim and get reviews on, based on which ones each AI platform relies on when someone searches for a personal injury lawyer.

This section looks only at recommendations: which law firms each AI actually names, not which websites it links to. We ran “personal injury lawyer [city]” on all five engines in all 100 cities, three times each. Then we checked each of the 9,633 firms in each city’s Google Maps results to see whether it was named, and compared that with seven factors:

  • Google organic ranking
  • Google Maps rank
  • Google review count and star rating
  • Yelp review count and star rating
  • Avvo attorney reviews

What matters most, by engine:

  • ChatGPT: Google review count (2.4×) and Google star rating (2.0×) matter most, ahead of organic ranking (1.5×). Yelp review count showed no clear effect, and Yelp rating added only a small boost (1.1×).
  • Google AI Mode: Google review count (2.0×) and organic ranking (1.7×) lead. Yelp review count adds a small boost (1.2×).
  • Google AI Overviews: Google review count (2.2×) and organic ranking (2.1×) lead. Google showed an AI Overview on only 33% of these searches, so few firms were named at all.
  • Gemini: Organic ranking (1.9×) leads, followed by Google review count (1.7×).
  • Perplexity: Google review count and organic ranking tie (1.6× each).

Avvo attorney reviews showed no clear effect on any engine.

Firm groupGoogle AI ModeGoogle AI OverviewsGeminiChatGPTPerplexity
Firm site in organic top 1030% named16%37%29%25%
Not in organic top 104%1%4%6%4%
Top 3 in Google Maps28%15%25%37%23%
Maps rank 11 or lower5%2%6%6%5%
250+ Google reviews21%10%19%26%16%
Under 50 Google reviews3%1%4%3%3%
10+ Yelp reviews21%5%17%18%15%
No Yelp reviews found6%2%7%7%5%

Share of firms named at least once on “personal injury lawyer [city]” in their city.

What about Yelp? Firms with 10 or more Yelp reviews were named two to three times as often as firms with none. But those firms also tend to have more Google reviews and stronger rankings. Once those are accounted for, Yelp adds at most a small boost (1.1–1.2×), and for ChatGPT, Yelp review count showed no clear effect. Most personal injury firms have little Yelp presence: only 13% of firms in our data showed any Yelp reviews, with a median of 3 among those that did.

On this search, ChatGPT cited Yelp in only 6% of answers. Its most-cited platforms were Expertise.com (32%), Avvo (30%), and Justia (28%). Yelp was cited in 16% of Google AI Mode answers and 11% of AI Overviews.

The same pattern holds on “best,” “top rated,” and “near me” searches:

On those searches, organic ranking leads on four engines, and ChatGPT again leans most on Google review count and star rating. Yelp review count adds a small boost on Google AI Mode, Gemini, and Perplexity, and no clear effect on ChatGPT.

Finding 2: Law firm websites dominate AI citations

Across all five engines, the single largest source of citations is law firm websites. That contradicts the common claim that AI tools mostly skip firm sites in favor of directories.

The mix changes with the kind of search:

Search typeLaw firm sitesLegal directoriesGoogle Business Profile / MapsGovernment / bar / courts
Finder (“best PI lawyer in…”)41%42%10%1%
Case type (car, truck, dog bite…)76%17%4%0%
Conversational (“I was rear-ended…”)81%11%2%2%
Decision (“do I need a lawyer…”)67%15%0%13%

Share of citations, all engines combined.

For broad “best lawyer” searches, directories carry as much weight as firm sites. For case-type and question searches, which is where practice-area pages and real explanatory content live, firm sites carry most of the citations.

ChatGPT stands out for citing government, bar, and court sites (14% of its citations, and 31% of its answers cite at least one). Most of those come from the decision-style questions.

Finding 3: Which directories and third-party sites get cited

Each engine has a distinct set of favorite sources:

  • Google AI Mode: Super Lawyers (46% of answers), Google Business Profile listings (19%), Justia (18%), Thumbtack (15%), Yelp (10%)
  • Google AI Overviews: Google Business Profile listings (21%), Super Lawyers (12%), YouTube (10%), Reddit (8%), Yelp (8%)
  • Gemini: Super Lawyers (54%), Justia (43%), Avvo (9%), Best Lawyers (6%)
  • ChatGPT: Avvo (36%), Expertise.com (32%), Google Maps listings (18%), Super Lawyers (14%), Yelp (11%)
  • Perplexity: Super Lawyers (41%), FindLaw (35%), LawInfo (35%), Avvo (26%), Martindale (19%), Lawyers.com (15%)

Super Lawyers is the most consistent directory, showing up in 63% of all “finder” answers. Avvo is close to absent in Google’s AI (1–2%) but is a top source for ChatGPT and Perplexity. That likely explains why other published studies disagree so much about Avvo: their results depend on which engine they tested.

ChatGPT cited Google Maps place listings in 18% of its answers, and Google’s own AI cited Google Business Profile listings in about 1 in 5 answers. For local searches, the Google Business Profile is a citation source on its own, separate from its role in the map pack.

Finding 4: On "find a lawyer" searches, platforms carry more weight

The source mix shifts when someone is looking for a lawyer rather than asking a question. On the three “finder” searches (“best personal injury lawyer in [city],” “top rated personal injury attorneys in [city],” and “personal injury lawyer near me”), third-party platforms make up most of the citations on every engine except Google AI Overviews and Gemini:

EngineThird-party platforms (directories, Google listings, review sites)Law firm sites
Google AI Mode69%30%
Google AI Overviews35%62%
Gemini38%60%
ChatGPT60%31%
Perplexity78%20%

Share of citations on finder searches.

Each engine’s top three platforms on these searches:

  • Google AI Mode: Super Lawyers (65% of answers), Justia (37%), Google Business Profile (33%)
  • Google AI Overviews: Google Business Profile (46%), Super Lawyers (22%), Justia (13%)
  • Gemini: Justia (88%), Super Lawyers (84%), Avvo (19%)
  • ChatGPT: Avvo (87%), Expertise.com (72%), Google Business Profile (40%)
  • Perplexity: Super Lawyers (97%), Avvo (74%), FindLaw (57%)

Yelp is a second-tier platform for lawyers, and it matters on some engines and searches but not others:

EngineFinder searches“I was rear-ended…”Case-type searchesQuestion searches
ChatGPT27%7%11%0%
Google AI Overviews11%32%2%3%
Google AI Mode13%17%9%1%
Gemini0%0%0%0%
Perplexity0%0%0%0%

Share of answers citing Yelp.

ChatGPT’s reliance on Yelp is consistent with Yelp licensing its review data to OpenAI in July 2026 (Pavado). Yelp appears much less often for lawyers than for local businesses overall: BrightLocal found Yelp in 80% of ChatGPT local answers across all business types (BrightLocal).

Finding 5: Google reviews and AI visibility

We took every firm that appeared in Google Maps results for “personal injury lawyer” in each city (9,753 listings, median of 27 reviews), then checked whether each AI engine named the firm or cited its website in any of that city’s answers.

Google reviewsFirmsNamed or cited by any engineAvg. answers naming the firm
0–93,03724%2.8
10–493,05237%4.3
50–991,32052%7.7
100–2491,34662%11.5
250–49957173%16.9
500–99929680%21.7
1,000+13192%30.7

The relationship holds on every engine. Google AI Overviews shows the steepest climb (14% at 0–9 reviews, 82% at 1,000+).

Firms ranking in the top 3 of Google Maps for “personal injury lawyer” were named by AI 94% of the time. Firms ranked 50th or lower were named 30% of the time.

Finding 6: Organic Google rankings and AI citations

For every search, we compared each AI answer with Google’s organic top 10 for the same search, city, and run. When a law firm’s page ranked in positions 1–3, the AI answer on that same search cited the firm’s site:

  • 62% of the time in Google AI Overviews
  • 31% in Gemini
  • 28% in Perplexity
  • 20% in Google AI Mode
  • 10% in ChatGPT

Every engine cites top-3 firms more often than firms in positions 7–10.

Google AI Overviews behaves most like a summary of the organic results: 56% of the sites it cites also rank in the top 10 for that search. ChatGPT is the most independent, at 12%.

Finding 7: SEO and reviews each matter, and they stack

To separate SEO from reviews, we split firms by whether their site ranked in Google’s organic top 10 for any of that city’s study searches. The measure here is strict: the firm’s name has to appear in the answer text itself.

  • With fewer than 10 reviews, firms that rank organically were named 60% of the time. Firms that don’t rank were named 11% of the time.
  • With 1,000+ reviews, the figures were 93% and 50%.

A logistic regression on the same 9,753 firms (outcome: named in at least one AI answer in their city) found:

FactorEffect on odds of being named
Firm site ranks in organic top 10About 11 times higher (odds ratio 10.8)
Doubling Google review countAbout 19% higher
Better Google Maps rank (halving rank number)About 37% higher
Each additional star of ratingAbout 19% higher

All four factors were statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Ranking organically has the largest effect by far, and reviews add to it independently. A firm with strong SEO and few reviews does better than a firm with many reviews and no organic presence. The firms that show up most do both.

Finding 8: When Google shows an AI Overview

Google showed an AI Overview on 78% of study searches overall, but that varies widely by search:

  • Question and conversational searches (“do I need a lawyer…”, “I was rear-ended…”, “how do I choose…”): 92–99%
  • Wrongful death attorney: 98%
  • Finder and case-type searches: 49% (motorcycle accident) to 80% (“near me”)

For many “find me a lawyer” searches, Google still shows a regular results page with no AI summary. The map pack and organic rankings carry those searches entirely.

Finding 9: How consistent are the answers?

Each prompt ran three times. Overlap in cited sites between runs (Jaccard similarity) was:

  • Perplexity (API): 98%
  • Gemini: 59%
  • Google AI Mode: 38%
  • Google AI Overviews: 38%
  • ChatGPT: 34%

Outside the Perplexity API, the same question can return a noticeably different set of sources from one run to the next. Single-run snapshots, which many vendor studies rely on, overstate how fixed these results are.

How this compares with other published data

Published studies on this question often conflict:

  • One vendor study reported Avvo at under 0.25% of AI citations (Forward Push).
  • Another found Avvo in 120 of 500 ChatGPT personal injury answers (Juris Digital).
  • BrightLocal’s broad local study found Google Business Profile at 42% of lawyer-category citations and Yelp at 7.9% (BrightLocal).

Our data explains much of the disagreement. Avvo is near zero in Google’s AI and a top source in ChatGPT, so results depend on which engine a study tests. Directory share also roughly doubles on “finder” searches compared with case-type searches, so results depend on prompt wording too.

What this means for personal injury firms:

  1. Invest in your own site first. Firm websites are the most-cited source on every engine, and organic ranking is the strongest predictor of being named. Practice-area and case-type pages with real, unique substance (local detail, original photos, clear explanations of the law) are what AI engines cite for case-type and question searches.
  2. Rank organically for case-type searches, not just “personal injury lawyer.” AI Overviews cite top-3 organic results 62% of the time. Gemini and Perplexity also favor top-ranked pages.
  3. Build Google reviews steadily. Review count tracks with AI visibility on every engine, and it adds to the effect of SEO. The gains from 0–9 reviews to 50–99 reviews (24% to 52% named) are the largest per review.
  4. Own your Google Business Profile. Google’s AI and ChatGPT both cite Google listings directly, and top-3 Maps firms were named 94% of the time.
  5. Pick directory profiles by engine. Super Lawyers is the broadest win. For ChatGPT, prioritize Avvo and Expertise.com. For Perplexity, add FindLaw, LawInfo, and Martindale. For Gemini, add Justia.
  6. For ChatGPT, Google reviews and rating come first. ChatGPT is the engine where Google review count and star rating most outweigh organic ranking in who gets named. It cites Yelp on finder searches, but Yelp review count did not predict who it recommends once Google reviews were accounted for.
  7. Answer the questions people actually ask. Question-style searches trigger AI Overviews almost every time, and their citations come mostly from firm sites and, on ChatGPT, government sources. Content that explains the law in plain English and links to official sources fits those answers.

How the study was run

Cities100 U.S. cities in 37 states plus D.C., chosen from a 124-city list of large U.S. cities after removing overlapping suburbs
Prompts13 personal injury searches: 1 local (“personal injury lawyer [city]”), 3 “finder,” 6 case-type, 1 conversational, 2 decision/question
EnginesGoogle AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity
RunsEach prompt × city × engine run 3 times
Answers18,898 AI answers. Findings 2–9 use the original 12 prompts (17,398 answers, 111,130 citations across 6,401 unique domains).
Google baselineOrganic top 10 and local pack for every prompt, city, and run
ReviewsGoogle Maps results for “personal injury lawyer” in each city: 9,753 firm listings with rating and review count. Yelp rating and review count and Avvo attorney reviews for each firm, from Google results for the firm name plus “Yelp” or “Avvo” (9,633 firms matched).
Data sourceDataForSEO APIs. Gemini and ChatGPT answers were captured as they appear in each app, with sources. Perplexity answers came from its sonar-pro API with web search. Google results were set to each city’s location.

Prompt list:

#IntentPrompt
1Finderbest personal injury lawyer in {city}, {ST}
2Findertop rated personal injury attorneys in {city}
3Finderpersonal injury lawyer near me (location set to the city)
4Case typebest car accident lawyer in {city}
5Case typetruck accident attorney in {city}
6Case typemotorcycle accident lawyer in {city}
7Case typeslip and fall lawyer in {city}
8Case typedog bite lawyer in {city}
9Case typewrongful death attorney in {city}
10ConversationalI was rear-ended in {city}. Who should I call for a lawyer?
11Decisionhow do I choose a personal injury lawyer in {city}?
12Decisiondo I need a lawyer after a car accident in {state}?
13Localpersonal injury lawyer {city}

Limitations

  • Same-day collection: All data was collected on October 17, 2026. AI answers change over time, so this is a snapshot.
  • Perplexity: Answers came from Perplexity’s API with web search, not the consumer app, and may differ from what app users see. They were also not location-targeted beyond naming the city in the prompt.
  • ChatGPT location: ChatGPT answers were set to the United States, not to individual cities. The city was named in every prompt, and the “near me” prompt was not run for ChatGPT or Perplexity.
  • Source categories: Sources were categorized with rules (known directories, review sites, government domains, and law-firm signals in the domain or page title). A small share may be miscategorized.
  • Firm name matching: Firm names were matched by distinctive name words. A spot check found about 92% of matches correct. Firms with very common surnames required a two-word match.
  • Yelp and Avvo data: Yelp and Avvo figures come from Google results for each firm’s name plus “Yelp” or “Avvo,” not from Yelp or Avvo directly. A Yelp listing counted only if Google showed it under the firm’s city, so suburban offices may be missed and some Yelp review counts may be understated. Avvo rates individual attorneys, so we matched attorney profiles whose names share a word with the firm name.
  • Firm universe: Only firms in Google Maps results for “personal injury lawyer” (up to about 100 per city) were analyzed for the reviews and rankings findings.
  • Correlation, not proof: The review and ranking relationships are correlations. Firms with strong SEO and many reviews also tend to be larger, longer-established firms, which the model can only partly control for.

Data

The full study, including every chart and table on this page, is available as a PDF. Questions about the methodology or data: contact us.

Want to know how your firm shows up in AI search?

Optimize My Firm helps personal injury firms earn visibility in Google and AI search with strong SEO, real backlinks, and unique content.