SAMPLE REPORT. The firm below is illustrative. Your audit will use your firm's actual public-facing data.

Lead Leak Map for legal intake

Phoenix DUI & Criminal Defense Solo. 4 of 15 systems healthy.

A real Lead Leak Map looks like this. We score a firm across 15 intake checkpoints in five categories (discoverability, first impression, capture, follow-up, retention), tally the dollar cost of the leaks, and recommend the fix order. This sample is anonymized and illustrative. The numbers and stats are sourced from public industry research (citations at the bottom).

Estimated annual leak

~$312,000

Based on the firm's stated average case fee of $20,000 (typical AZ DUI/criminal retainer range), a 30% consult-to-sign rate, and one missed qualified after-hours call per week (Stafi 2024, 80% of voicemail callers hang up; Clio 2024, after-hours answer rates near 10%).

11 leaking
0 concerning
4 healthy

Top 3 fixes by ROI

  1. AI receptionist for after-hours and overflow calls
  2. Missed-call text-back in under 60 seconds
  3. Google Business Profile completeness and review velocity

The five categories

1

Discoverability

Does the right prospect find you when they need you?

Leaking

Searched "Phoenix DUI attorney" in incognito. Firm appears on page 2 of organic results, not in the Google map pack for the practice area. Google Business Profile is claimed but missing the practice-area categories and has only 12 reviews, oldest in the last 90 days. Avvo profile exists but is unclaimed; FindLaw and Justia profiles are not present.

"phoenix dui attorney" incognito search
Map pack positions 1, 2, 3 → competitor firms with 47, 89, 156 reviews
Subject firm: not in map pack, ranked #14 in organic
GBP reviews: 12 total, most recent 47 days ago

Approx. $40K/yr in case value lost to firms with stronger local visibility

The fix

Local SEO + GBP optimization + legal-directory (Avvo, Justia, FindLaw) claim and tuning + bar-compliant review-request workflow at matter close.

2

First impression

Does the site sell trust in 5 seconds on a phone?

Concerning

Site loads in 4.8 seconds on mobile (4G simulation). Above-the-fold copy is firm history, not the practice area or how to get a consultation. Click-to-call works on the header phone number. Trust proof (bar admission, years practicing, case-type list) is in a sub-page two clicks deep, not visible on entry.

Mobile load: 4.8s LCP (target < 2.5s)
Above the fold: "About our firm" headline, attorney photo
Above the fold misses: practice area, jurisdiction, consult CTA
Click-to-call: working

A legal shopper bounces in seconds. ~30% of mobile traffic leaves before this firm's value prop loads.

The fix

Mobile-first rebuild of the practice-area pages with trust proof, jurisdiction, and consult CTA above the fold. Image compression and font subsetting to hit sub-3s load.

3

Capture

Can they reach you the moment they decide?

Leaking

Tested the main line at 9:47pm on a Wednesday. Voicemail picked up after 6 rings with a generic message. No callback within 24 hours. No SMS auto-acknowledgement. The contact form on the site has 9 fields including 3 required custom dropdowns; on mobile it took 2 minutes to complete and required typing two paragraphs of free text.

After-hours call test: 9:47pm Wed → voicemail at 6 rings
Callback received: none within 24 hours
Missed-call text-back: none
Contact form: 9 fields, 2 minutes to complete on mobile

~$150K/yr lost to firms that answered first. 67% of legal prospects sign with the first firm that responds (Hennessey 2025).

The fix

AI receptionist on the main line 24/7 with matter screening and consult booking, plus missed-call text-back in under 60 seconds, plus a 4-field mobile intake form.

4

Follow-up

When they reach out, how fast do you respond?

Leaking

Submitted a test inquiry through the contact form at 11:14am Tuesday. Received a generic auto-reply ("we will be in touch") at 11:14am. A real human reply came at 3:42pm the same day, 4 hours 28 minutes after submission. No nurture sequence for inquiries that do not book. No tracking of consult-to-retainer rate.

Form submitted: 11:14am Tue
Auto-reply: 11:14am (generic)
Human reply: 3:42pm (+4h 28m)
Nurture sequence for "not yet" leads: none detected

Firms that respond within 5 minutes are 21x more likely to qualify the lead (Harvard Business Review). 4-hour response loses most legal prospects.

The fix

Sub-5-minute auto-acknowledge plus practice-area-specific nurture sequences (5+ touches over weeks) plus consult-to-retainer tracking by source in your CRM.

5

Retention & reviews

Do past clients refer, and do you ask for reviews?

Leaking

12 Google reviews against a competitor average of 89 in the same practice area. No review-request workflow at matter close. No past-client outreach cadence (life event, milestone, anniversary). No tracked attorney-referral program.

Google reviews: 12 total
Top 3 local competitors: 47, 89, 156 reviews
Review-request workflow: none
Past-client outreach cadence: none

Permanent soft cost: low-review firms pay more in ads to compensate for losing the organic local-pack race.

The fix

Automated bar-compliant review-request workflow at matter close, plus past-client value cadence (quarterly), plus tracked referral path for both clients and referring attorneys.

This was a sample. Get the same map for your firm.

The Time-Back Audit produces a Lead Leak Map like this one, scored against your firm's actual public-facing intake. Includes a 30-minute discovery call with David, an 8-page custom report, and a 30 to 60 minute working session. $497 with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.

Book the $497 audit →

Sources for the stats cited above

  1. Clio Legal Trends Report 2024 (Lux secret-shopper study of 500 firms; after-hours answer rates and email response rates).
  2. Stafi legal intake research, 2024 (80% of voicemail-bound callers hang up).
  3. Harvard Business Review, Oldroyd, McElheran, Elkington (study of 2,241 firms and 100,000+ web leads; 21x and 9x speed-to-lead findings).
  4. Hennessey Digital 2025 Lead Form Response Time Study (67% of legal prospects sign with the first firm that responds).
  5. Phillips Law Group Arizona settlement data; Insurance Research Council (Arizona PI case-value ranges).

← Back to law firms overview