In a client’s words. And in the numbers.
Most agencies ask you to take their word for it. Here is a client on camera, the measurement behind the claim, and a working copy of the dashboard our clients open every month — all before you ever talk to us.
“Would you recommend this company? My answer is simple. Yes.”
Attorney D. Robin Gouveia has represented personal injury victims since 1989. She is the managing attorney at d’Oliveira & Associates, a personal injury firm serving Rhode Island and Massachusetts — and a First Mind AI client.
Our firm’s presence on AI searches has improved greatly. We’re sure prospective clients are seeing these results and making choices based on what they see.
D. Robin Gouveia — Managing Attorney, d’Oliveira & Associates
Would you recommend this company? My answer is simple. Yes.
D. Robin Gouveia — Managing Attorney, d’Oliveira & Associates
What it looks like when a firm starts winning the answer layer.
Two engagements, two states, two firm sizes. Every figure below is read directly out of live AI-visibility monitoring — the same instrumentation we would put on your firm — and none of it is modeled, projected, or estimated. Firms are unnamed by policy.
Engagement A · Multi-location personal injury firm, two adjacent state markets
From two answers to thirteen, in six weeks
We monitor a fixed set of 38 real buyer questions — the phrasings people actually type when they need a lawyer, not keywords. On 24 June, ChatGPT named this firm on two of them. On 4 August, on thirteen. Same questions, same engine, same method on both dates.
First in the market, out of 314 firms
Position moved with it. Against the full competitive field — every domain an AI named in response to those questions — the firm went from fifth of 217 to first of 314, with no firm ranked above it.
Past the biggest advertiser in the country
The market leader in June scored 26.8% and had slipped to 22.9% by August. Our client reached 34.1% — ahead of every regional firm, and ahead of the largest national personal injury brand, which scored 12.0% in its own client’s back yard.
Engagement B · Single-office personal injury firm, suburban market inside a major metro
This firm arrived having done what every agency recommends: publish more. We instrumented the site and read back which of its pages the AI engines were actually citing. What comes back is a short, specific map of where the leverage sits — the read we run before recommending a single piece of work.
We found the page the engines had already chosen
The second most-cited page on the site was the About page — 368 citations in 30 days, on 172 words of copy. The engines had already decided that page defines the firm. That makes it the highest-leverage page on the site, and instrumentation is the only way to know it.
Identity, place and proof — in that order
Across 30 days the engines cited 92 separate pages. The twelve they reached for most were the homepage, the About page, the reviews page, five surrounding-town pages, an attorney biography and the contact page. That is a short, precise list to go to work on.
Volume was never the lever
The firm arrived having published a quarter of advice articles before we got there. None of them appeared in the cited set. That one reading is what redirects an engagement away from a content calendar and onto the pages the engines actually reach for.
Engagement A · What happens where we build presence deliberately
The same firm, the same practice areas, the same engines, read on the same day — scored against questions naming different places. Presence is not something a firm either has or doesn’t. It is built one place at a time, and the measurement follows.
The town at the top is in the market this firm entered most recently — the one where we built dedicated pages. It now scores more than twice the established home state.
What this changes
The work that moves AI visibility is not more content. It is rebuilding what the engines understand the firm to be — the identity, place and credential pages they already reach for, plus the third-party sources they check them against. That is a different project from a content calendar, and it is the one we run.
One question set. Every engine. Every month.
We fix the set of monitored questions at the start of an engagement and report against that same set every month, broken out engine by engine. Each month’s reading is directly comparable to the last, and you can see exactly which engine moved. Here is Engagement A, in full.
| Reading | Baseline | Current | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full monitored set, as of today | — | 34.1% | The firm’s position today, and the basis of the #1 ranking in its market. |
| Like-for-like, the 38 questions monitored on both dates | 19.5% | 20.5% | The blended average across all five engines, same questions both dates. |
| ChatGPT, those same 38 questions | 5.3% | 34.2% | Where the entity work landed — a 6.5× move on the engine we targeted first. |
Read together, those rows show precisely where the work landed. The entity build moved ChatGPT hard while the live-web engines held flat — the expected signature of authority work, and the reason we already know which engine to sequence next. Clients get the per-engine breakdown every month, not just a headline.
See exactly what a client sees.
Every First Mind client gets a live dashboard: where their AI visibility stands, why it moved, and what ships next. This is that dashboard, running on a sample firm — the same layout, controls, and reasoning, with invented numbers.
- Where the firm stands this month, on the real questions buyers ask
- Which competitors AI names instead, and by how much
- The approval queue — every draft, one click to approve or send back
- The monthly report, rebuilt from live measurement rather than typed up
Method
Buyer questions are submitted to ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot and Google AI Mode on a fixed schedule; answers are parsed for brand mention, cited source and competitive set. Visibility is the share of monitored questions on which a firm is named, averaged across engines. Baseline and current readings use identical methodology.
Client identities withheld. Figures are drawn from live monitoring dated 4 August 2026 (Engagement A) and 17 August 2026 (Engagement B). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every market and every firm differs.
We will run this instrumentation on your firm first.
The real questions your clients ask, which of your pages the engines already cite, where your town line falls, and who is beating you today. You keep the findings either way.
Book a 30-Minute Discovery Call