Every agency selling to law firms claims the same three things. Deep legal experience. Proven results. A real AI strategy. Taqtics makes those claims too. A full-stack programmatic law firm marketing agency with direct access to premium CTV inventory. It wrote this scorecard, and it sits inside it.

Here’s the part that usually goes missing. The criteria come first, before anybody gets a score.

That order does the work. Publish the test after the results, and you can shape one your own company passes. Publish it first, and a reader can run it on agencies you left out.

Eight criteria follow, then eight agencies scored on them, with Taqtics in the set. Taqtics wins one. It loses six. One criterion has no winner.

The evidence rule

Every rival fact came off that company’s own live page in July 2026. Each page gets named, so you can open it. Pages get edited, so the date carries weight. Where a page failed to load for us, we drop the point. An unreadable page tells you about our checking, never about the company.

Criterion 1. Who else the agency serves

No winner. A real tradeoff.

Scorpion sells across verticals. Its about page lists legal beside home services, medical, franchise and hospital systems.

Rankings.io narrowed instead. “Growing law firms through search is all we do,” says its about page. That page dates the personal injury focus to 2018.

Consultwebs, LawRank, Juris Digital, Mockingbird Marketing and Grow Law all position as legal-only. Hennessey Digital spans industries, and its case-studies page says “We work with all types of businesses.”

Taqtics runs one sector live and eight mapped, per its sectors page.

Breadth buys a bench trained in other categories. Legal-only buys people who already know the advertising rules.

Criterion 2. Operating history somebody outside the company checked

Taqtics loses this outright.

Rankings.io carries the strongest entry. It claims a run of eight straight Inc. 5000 years, 2018 to 2025. Hennessey Digital’s about page says “6x ranked on the Inc. 5000,” a count with no years attached.

Consultwebs shows the longest tenure, naming Dale Tincher as founder and 1999. Mockingbird gives 2013 and founder Conrad Saam. Grow Law gives 2008.

A self-reported founding year and an outside listing are different classes of evidence. Weight them differently.

Taqtics publishes no agency founding year at all. The only tenure line belongs to its founder: “I’ve run this read since 2009.” On this criterion Taqtics finishes bottom of the set.

Criterion 3. A named client, a figure, a window, a method

Taqtics loses this one too.

Four parts to the test. Name the client. Attach a figure. State the window. Describe the method.

LawRank names clients and uses a genuine attribution qualifier: “Anderson Injury Lawyers Firm Grew SEO-Attributed Cases by 614%.” Consultwebs names Marks & Harrison and Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, with a window: “in just the first twelve months of working together.”

Mockingbird’s figures run smallest, like a “35% increase in search visibility.” One gets framed against the client’s own target. Grow Law’s pricing page names three firms with figures, though none carries a window.

Rankings.io goes bigger on anonymous clients: “992% ChatGPT Visibility Growth for a Personal Injury Firm.” No baseline, no window, no method.

Taqtics names its engagements: AEE Law, MesoWatch, AZ Law Now, DepoWatch and injured.org. Not one of those named engagements carries a published figure. Four agencies here manage it. Taqtics manages none.

Criterion 4. A published price

Taqtics loses to two named agencies.

Grow Law itemizes furthest. Its pricing page starts organic search at $2,500 monthly and paid advertising at $1,450. A bundle runs $4,299.

Juris Digital publishes ranges away from its pricing page. Small firms run “$2,000 to $4,000 per month” on its facts page, larger budgets “$5,000 to $50,000.” Its own pricing URL 404s.

Consultwebs stands apart. Its pricing URL loads an essay about pricing, and no Consultwebs price.

Six pricing URLs we opened in July 2026 returned that company’s own error page. Scorpion, Rankings.io, Hennessey Digital, LawRank, Mockingbird and Taqtics. That’s a checkable fact about a page, not a claim about anyone’s motive.

Criterion 5. The contract term, and what you leave with

Two questions, not one. Keeping your assets and departing with a functioning site differ.

Rankings.io answers both on its about page. It publishes “Month-to-month, not handcuffs,” and “You own everything.” The list runs to domain, code, content, backlinks, creative, analytics and CRM data.

Mockingbird settles ownership as plainly. Its about page: “If our association comes to an end, your content, website, and assets are yours.”

Scorpion shows why the two questions stay apart. Its FAQ says “Yes, you own your website after the length of your contract with Scorpion is complete.” The same page adds that you “won’t own the underlying system.” You can own the site and still not own what runs it.

Two agencies publish an engagement term. Scorpion’s FAQ says it “typically requires a 12-month contract” for marketing technology and SEO. Juris Digital’s facts page discloses the longest here, “12 to 24-month contracts.” Read both as candor, not a penalty.

Hennessey Digital, Consultwebs, LawRank and Grow Law publish no engagement terms we could find. Some publish terms-of-use pages, which govern website use instead. They stay unscored, because judging a company on a page nobody opened isn’t comparison.

Taqtics puts ownership at item 03 of its terms page. Work passes to the client “once they have paid in full, as set out in the service agreement.” Payment conditions it. A private document holds the rest. Nothing covers the domain, the analytics or the ad accounts. Rankings.io and Mockingbird publish the plainer promise, and Taqtics loses to both.

Criterion 6a. A described method for measuring AI visibility

LawRank takes this, ahead of Taqtics.

Its AIO page lists what it measures. It tracks “mention rate by AI platform, competitive share of voice, sentiment across AI-generated responses.” A baseline query set gets named. So does a 60-to-90-day expectation. It even publishes a prerequisite most would bury: “We do not offer AIO as a standalone service.”

Consultwebs runs a visibility report readers trigger themselves, using their own prompts, once every 30 days.

Scorpion markets “Ranking AI” on its SEO page, naming no platform, metric or measurement. Mockingbird instead describes internal AI use, spending “less than 5% of our time obsessing on the latest fads.” Different bet, not a broken promise.

Taqtics offers nothing on the service side to match. Open both pages and LawRank’s is better.

Criterion 6b. A published measured finding, with its method and its date

Taqtics takes this one, the only one it takes.

Its legal-citations study puts finding and method on a single dated page. 236 citations across 26 searches in 8 metro markets, June 2026. Two in three led to firms’ own sites, 67% of the total. Directories drew roughly 21%, earned press roughly 11%.

That page states the study’s limits. One engine. One dated snapshot. Hand-classified. Anyone can repeat the searches.

Taqtics has no monopoly on research. Hennessey Digital’s 2025 branded-search study names its sample. It covers “more than 15,000 law firm websites as measured by the SEO tool Semrush,” from December 2025. That beats anything Taqtics has run. Juris Digital keeps a dated research library, including a 140-person click study.

The defensible claim concerns shape, not exclusivity. Finding, sample, date, engine and stated limits, published together.

Criterion 7. What the agency discloses before anyone asks

Rankings.io takes it. Taqtics loses it.

A headed “Ownership & Disclosure” section on its about page names a live related-party interest. CEO Chris Dreyer holds an approved non-attorney ownership stake in Law Bear, an Arizona-only personal injury firm. No Arizona-headquartered personal injury firm onboards “without full written disclosure of this interest.”

Juris Digital discloses by another route. Its facts page carries the ownership split, dated headcount, pricing and a retention rate. Mockingbird publishes the bluntest refusal: “If an agency ever guarantees to ‘Get you #1 on Google,’ it’s probably a scam. Run.”

Taqtics publishes no conflict-of-interest disclosure and no results-typicality disclaimer. A no-guarantee promise covers the future. A typicality disclaimer qualifies figures already published. Taqtics has the first and not the second.

The scorecard, one line each

What to do with this

Three moves.

Make every shortlisted agency produce a client name, a date range and a described method. A blank in any of the three tells you plenty.

Open the pricing URL before you book the call. A published band settles in seconds whether the meeting earns its hour.

Last, look up who assembled the shortlist you started from.

Then aim the same demand for real numbers at the leads themselves. Anyone weighing the cost of personal injury leads can read a longer worked example. It argues cost per signed case beats cost per lead.

A scorecard its author sweeps isn’t a comparison. It’s a brochure.

About the author

Jared Reagan writes on marketing measurement for law firms. He works at Taqtics, a full-stack programmatic law firm marketing agency with direct access to premium CTV inventory. The agency produced this scorecard. It scored itself on the same eight criteria, won one and lost six.